preloader image

Loading...

The Legal Affair

Let's talk Law

The Legal Affair

Let's talk Law

Pidilite receives ad-interim relief from the Bombay High Court in a trademark infringement case

Pidilite receives ad-interim relief from the Bombay High Court in a trademark infringement case

The maker of the adhesive Fevi Kwik, Pidilite Industries Ltd., recently received ad-interim relief from the Bombay High Court in a trademark infringement case it brought against the adhesive Fixo Kwik manufacturer Fixo Industries. Justice Manish Pitale held that upon investigation, the symbol used by the defendant was very similar to the one trademarked by Pidlite and so is likely to confuse the consumer.

The Court stated: “It is found that there is a likelihood of consumer being confused when the defendants’ goods is presented before him because of the use of the word ‘KWIK’ and the words ‘ONE DROP INSTANT ADHESIVE’ coupled with the image of a globe.”

Pidilite’s lawyer, Hiren Kamod, informed the court that the plaintiff first encountered the defendants’ goods in October 2021 and discovered that their trademark, “Fixo Kwik,” was confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s mark. Kamod asserted that the design of the packet as well as the positioning of the words utilised in the mark were a clear and unequivocal replica of the plaintiff’s original packet.

He further asserted that the owner of Fixo submitted applications to register the mark in 2013 and 2014, but those applications were turned down by the appropriate authority. He said that notwithstanding the denial of their registration applications, the defendants continued to use the fake mark in an obvious manner, which prompted the plaintiff to file a court motion.

It’s interesting to note that defendant No. 2 in the suit, whom the plaintiffs claim to be the owner of Fixo, denied any involvement with the mark and said she had no connection to the business at all.  Her lawyer contended that the plaintiff could not be given ad-interim relief, at least not insofar as she was concerned, because there was no evidence linking her to the product.

The court did note that the mark was similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, and as a result, it determined that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for the granting of ad-interim relief.

CASE: Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs Fixo Industries and Anr.