Hengst Se vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi G-10, Udyog Nagar, Delhi- 110041

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)/246/2022HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01008240202203 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH13 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court held that the Defendants' marks were indeed deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' mark 'HENGST'. The Court found that the Defendants' conduct, including applying for multiple similar marks and admitting to not conducting genuine business under them, indicated an intent to traffic or hoard these marks. This was further evidenced by previous instances where the Defendants were penalized with costs for similar actions. The Court concluded that such large-scale illegality could not be ignored. Consequently, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants and ordered the withdrawal/cancellation of their impugned trademark applications and registrations. The Defendants also assured that they possessed no products bearing the mark 'HENGST' and were directed to pay a significant sum towards part-litigation costs to the Plaintiffs.

Facts

The Plaintiffs, Hengst SE and Hengst Luman India Pvt. Ltd., are the owners of the trademark 'HENGST', adopted in 1958 and extensively used in India since 2012 for filtration solutions. They hold registrations for this mark in various classes. The Defendants, Tejmeet Singh Sethi and U We India, applied for and obtained registrations for deceptively similar marks such as 'HENGEST', 'HANXXET', and 'HENGST AUTOMOTIVE' in classes related to chemicals, vehicle parts, filters, and industrial oils. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation petitions against these registrations, alleging infringement and wrongful registration. The Defendants stated they were not conducting genuine business under these marks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Defendants' trademarks 'HENGEST', 'HANXXET', and 'HENGST AUTOMOTIVE' are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trademark 'HENGST', infringing upon the Plaintiffs' rights under trademark law? 2. Whether the Defendants' actions in applying for and obtaining registrations for these marks constitute trademark trafficking or hoarding, indicating an intent to misuse the trademark system? Petitioner/Appellant Arguments: The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants' marks were deceptively similar to their well-established 'HENGST' mark, leading to confusion among consumers. They contended that the Defendants had applied for numerous marks that were identical or confusingly similar to third-party marks, suggesting a pattern of trademark trafficking. They relied on the extensive use and goodwill associated with their 'HENGST' mark. Revenue/State Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue/State. However, it notes the Defendants' counsel's submissions and undertakings.

Sections Cited

Section 48(i), Section 48(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CS(COMM) 600/2021 & connected matters

$~9, 8 & 22 to 26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

CS(COMM) 600/2021 & I.A. 15381/2021

HENGST SE & ANR.

..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Kajal Arora, Advocate.

versus

TEJMEET SINGH SETHI & ANR.

..... Defendants Through: Mr. Niloy Dasgupta & Mr. Hemant Daswani, Advocates. WITH 8 +

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 330/2021

HENGST SE ANR

..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Kajal Arora, Advocate.

versus

TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR

..... Defendants Through: Mr. Niloy Dasgupta & Mr. Hemant Daswani, Advocates (M-9810477627) 22

WITH +

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 246/2022

HENGST SE

..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kajal Arora, Advocate.

versus

TEJMEET SINGH SETHI G-10, UDYOG NAGAR, DELHI-110041

..... Defendant Through: Mr. Niloy Dasgupta & Mr. Hemant Daswani, Advocates.

WITH +

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 248/2022 HENGST SE BODY INCORPORATE, NIENKAMP 55-85, 489147, MUNSTER DE, GERMANY

..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kajal Arora, Advocate. This is a digitally

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.