Bombay High Court: In a suit filed by Pidilite Industries Limited (plaintiff) seeking ad-interim reliefs against defendants for selling adhesive products by the name “FIXO KWIK”, which is deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff, not only in the placement of the words used in the mark but also the designing of the packet in which the adhesive is sold, the same being a colourable imitation or a substantial reproduction of the original packet of the plaintiff, Manish Pitale, J., restrained defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising, offering to sell or dealing in the impugned Products bearing the FIXO KWIK Mark and/or Label/Packaging, or any other marks/labels/ trade dresses/packaging identical with or similar to FEVI KWIK registered marks. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is a world-renowned business entity in the field of adhesives and sealants construction and paint chemicals, automotive chemicals etc., and that the present plaint is concerned about the product “FEVI KWIK”, which is a cyanoacrylate adhesive / instant adhesive. It is stated that the mark “FEVI KWIK” was conceived and adopted in the year 1987 by the plaintiff and has been continuously in use since 1991.

The Court noted that a bare perusal of the two marks would show that the mark being allegedly used by the defendants is prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. There is sufficient material placed on record to show that prima facie the mark allegedly being used by the defendants would have the tendency of causing confusion in the mind of a purchaser.

The Court further noted that the overall impression created by the product allegedly brought into the market by the defendants has the effect of confusing the consumers and it can be said that prima facie the defendants seem to be committing the act of passing-off.

The Court remarked that the use of the word ‘KWIK’ and the sentence ‘ONE DROP INSTANT ADHESIVE’ along with the image of a globe create deception and it is found that there is a likelihood of consumer being confused when the defendants’ product is placed before him.

The Court thus held that the plaintiff would continue to suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted and therefore, the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the plaintiff.

[Pidilite Industries Limited v. Fixo Industries, Commercial IP Suit No. 6245 of 2022, decided on 10-10-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w. Mr. Nishad Nadkarni, Mr. Aasif Navodia and Ms. Khushboo Jhunjhunwala i/b. Khaitan & Co. for Applicant / Plaintiff

Mr. Fakhruddin Khan a/w. Mr. Salman and Ms. Saima for Defendants.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.