Delhi High Court: Plaintiffs sought interlocutory injunction, restraining Defendant 3 from using the mark 
, Defendant 4 from using the marks Shrinath Tourist Agency, Shrinath Nandu Travels, 
, 
and Defendant 5 from using the mark 
. C. Hari Shankar, J.* granted an injunction against defendants and all others acting on their behalf from using the words ‘SHRINATH’ or ‘SHREENATH’, or the marks 
, 
, and 
in any manner whatsoever or any other mark which might be similar to plaintiffs’ registered trade marks SHRINATH, 
, 
, 
, and 
. However, the prayer for injunction against the use of the mark 
by Defendant 5 was rejected.
Background
Plaintiffs were the proprietor of the trade marks 
, 
, 
, 
, and ‘SHRINATH’, registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and were engaged in the business of providing tour and travel services. For 2021- 2022, plaintiffs claimed to have earned Rs. 51,81,18,002 from providing tour and travel services under these marks. The ’SHRINATH’ word mark was adopted by plaintiffs in 1978 and had, since then, been used continuously on a pan-India basis. Plaintiffs were aggrieved by defendants’ use of logos which were deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ registered trade marks and word mark ‘SHRINATH’. Plaintiffs submitted that the defendants’ logos were being used for identical services which were bound to result in confusion in the market.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that prima facie the marks 
, 
, and 
used by Defendants 3 and 4 infringed plaintiffs’ registered trade marks SHRINATH, 
, 
, 
, and 
. The Court observed that the predominant feature of the impugned marks of Defendant 3 and 4 was the word ‘SHREENATH’ or ‘SHRINATH’, which Defendant 3 writes as ‘SHREENATH’ and Defendant 4 writes as SHRINATH, and opined that the slight difference in spelling really made no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs held a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se. The Court also opined that “infringement had to be examined from the point of view of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, and such a consumer was certainly unlikely to distinguish between the marks of plaintiffs and Defendants 3 and 4, which were otherwise structurally similar, merely because of the slight difference in spelling between ‘SHRINATH’ and ‘SHREENATH’.
The Court relied on K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co., (1969) 2 SCC 131 and opined that the word ‘SHREENATH’ used by Defendant 3 was phonetically similar to ‘SHRINATH’ and the word ‘SHRINATH’ as used by Defendant 4 was identical to mark used by plaintiffs, and the likelihood of confusion in the market was apparent and insofar as the device marks of defendants were concerned, as the word component of the said marks (SHREENATH/SHRINATH) was identical/deceptively similar to the word SHRINATH in respect of which plaintiffs possess a word mark registration, the aspect of likelihood of confusion stood exacerbated.
The Court thus opined that a prima facie case for injuncting Defendants 3 and 4 from using the impugned marks 
, 
, and 
therefore existed. However, the Court opined that the logo 
of Defendant 5 did not infringe plaintiffs’ mark or even made out a case of passing off as the predominant feature of the mark of Defendant 5 was the word ‘HUMSAFAR’ and there was no similarity whatsoever between ‘HUMSAFAR’ and ‘SHRINATH’. The Court observed that no word, which was structurally or phonetically similar to ‘HUMSAFAR’ was to be found in any of the registered trade marks of plaintiffs and on an overall impression of the two marks, it could not be said that the impugned mark infringed any of the registered trade marks of plaintiffs.
The Court disposed of the present application in the following terms:
-
There shall be an injunction against defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf from using the words ‘SHRINATH’ or ‘SHREENATH’, or the marks
, 
, and 
in any manner whatsoever or any other mark which might be similar to plaintiffs’ registered trade marks SHRINATH, 
, 
, 
, and 
. -
Defendants 3 and 4 were also directed to remove, from all physical and virtual sites, including social media platforms, the impugned marks
, 
, and 
. -
The prayer for injunction against the use of the mark
by Defendant 5 was rejected. -
Defendants were directed to cease and desist from using the domain names www.ajayshreenathtravellers.com and www.shrinathnandutravels.com.
[Shrinath Travel Agency v. Infinity Infoway (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7196, decided on 06-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiffs: Karuna Nundy, Nischal Anand, Tanvi Jain, Aman Preet Singh, Rishika Rishabh, Advocates
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
This insightful article sheds light on the Delhi High Court’s decision to restrain the use of specific words, “Shrinath” and “Shreenath,” in the context of tour and travel services. The court’s nuanced approach in protecting intellectual property and preventing potential confusion in the market is commendable. It reflects a commitment to maintaining clarity and fairness within the business landscape. Kudos to the legal team involved for their diligence in upholding the principles of trademark law.