The Delhi High Court has clarified that where the essential and prominent feature of the plaintiff’s registered trademark and trade name is wholly reproduced by the defendant, the mere addition of a descriptive suffix such as “SEED,” or the insertion of corporate descriptors in the trade name, does not sufficiently distinguish the defendant’s mark or name, particularly when the competing goods target the same class of consumers and the overall logo, packaging, and presentation are also deceptively similar.
In such circumstances, in an ex parte interim order, the Court held that the addition of the word “SEED” to the plaintiff’s “SAFEX” mark did not distinguish the defendants’ mark or trade name, especially where the competing goods targeted the same consumer base and the overall logo, packaging, and presentation were also found deceptively similar.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and persons acting on their behalf from using, marketing, selling, advertising, or otherwise dealing in identical goods and services under the marks “SAFEX” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, name, logo, monogram, or label, whether as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or part of packaging, artwork, get-up, layout, or design. The Court also restrained them from copying or using the plaintiff’s artistic device, logo, or packaging that imitates the plaintiff’s artistic work in whole or in part.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that, on a plain comparison, there was no real distinction between the plaintiff’s mark “SAFEX” and the defendants’ marks “SAFEX” / “SAFEX SEED.” It held that the addition of the word “SEED” was not distinctive and was merely descriptive of the goods and services of defendant no. 1, and therefore could not distinguish the defendants’ mark from that of the plaintiff. The Bench also noted that, in the trade names of the parties, the words “SAFEX” and “India” were common, while the interspersed words such as “Chemicals,” “Limited,” “SEED,” and “LLP” would not carry material value for the ultimate consumer, who would likely recall the word “SAFEX” first.
The Bench further found that the logos of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were deceptively similar, if not identical. It noted that both used leaf pictography, similar dark blue or black stylisation, and prominently displayed the word “SAFEX,” while the words “SEED INDIA LLP” appeared only in small font as a subscript in the defendants’ logo. The Bench emphasised that the ultimate consumers of the products of both parties were farmers and agriculturists, who may go by brand reputation rather than making a detailed inquiry into the manufacturer.
Additionally, the Bench observed that the defendants’ packaging, including use of “SAFEX” in Hindi and “SAFEX SEEDS” on the rear side, could project to consumers that the product originated from the plaintiff. The defendants’ Instagram page also prominently displayed the allegedly infringing mark and logo. It accepted, at the prima facie stage, that the plaintiff had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark and logo “SAFEX” through long use, sales turnover, promotional material, and prior legal actions.
Briefly, the matter arises from a commercial suit filed by Safex Chemicals India Limited against Safex Seed India LLP and another, along with an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The plaintiff asserted that it had adopted and used the trademark and trade name “SAFEX” in relation to agrochemical products since 1991, had established manufacturing facilities between 1992 and 2005, registered the domain name safexchemicals.com in 2008, applied for registration of the label “SAFEX” in Class 5 on Sep 05, 2011 claiming user since Aug 01, 2011, and also obtained copyright registration for the artistic work in the logo/label “SAFEX.” The plaintiff claimed extensive business operations across India, substantial sales turnover, wide promotional activity, and continuous use of “SAFEX” both as a trademark and trade name.
The plaintiff further contended that it had built substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark “SAFEX,” supported by its sales figures, advertisements, social media presence, and prior enforcement actions. It alleged that defendant no. 1 was engaged in agricultural products, particularly fodder seeds, and was using the marks “SAFEX” and “SAFEX SEED,” along with a deceptively similar logo and the trade name “SAFEX SEED INDIA LLP.” According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 marketed and sold those products. The plaintiff also relied on the defendants’ product packaging and Instagram page to contend that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, and logo and were attempting to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill among farmers and agriculturists.
