- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr v. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd .
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a suit concerning the use of the mark and word "Mercedes" by the defendant in relation to kitchenware products such as casseroles and thermos flasks. The plaintiff, associated with the well-known "Mercedes Benz" automobile brand, sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from using the name "Mercedes" on these goods. The defendant contended against the injunction, citing various precedents and arguments including delay in approaching the court and the alleged generic nature of the word "Mercedes". The court heard extensive arguments from the defendant's counsel and examined the distinctiveness and reputation of the "Mercedes" mark before delivering its order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant is entitled to use the mark "Mercedes" on kitchenware products given the established reputation of the "Mercedes Benz" mark in automobiles.
- Whether the plaintiff's delay in seeking injunction disentitles it from relief.
- The applicability of principles such as honest concurrent user and acquiescence in the context of a well-known trademark like "Mercedes".
- The scope of protection afforded to a famous trademark against alleged colourable imitation on unrelated goods.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant relied on a number of precedents to argue why the injunction should be refused.
- It was contended that "Mercedes" is also the name of a city in South America, implying the term is not exclusively associated with the car brand.
- Delay by the plaintiff in approaching the court for an injunction was cited, referencing cases where delay disentitled relief.
- Cases involving marks such as "Doctor", "Matador", and concurrent user principles were cited to support the defendant’s position.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff highlighted the longstanding and worldwide reputation of the "Mercedes Benz" mark and its associated symbol, the three-pointed star.
- It was argued that "Mercedes" is not a common or generic name in India, nor does it exist as a personal name in the country.
- The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s use of "Mercedes" on kitchenware constitutes a colourable imitation and dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous mark.
- It was emphasized that the defendant cannot claim honest concurrent user or acquiescence given the plaintiff’s worldwide reputation and prior legal notice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1992 Delhi 302 (Mark: "Doctor") | Delay in approaching court can disentitle relief for injunction. | Distinguished on facts; "Doctor" is a common word unlike "Mercedes". Delay principle not applicable here. |
| 1980 RLR 263 (Mark: "Matador") | Delay disentitles relief; mark with limited reputation. | Rejected as "Matador" mark’s reputation not comparable to "Mercedes". |
| Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, 1963 Supreme Court 449 | Honest concurrent user carved out as exception to injunction. | Not applicable; defendant cannot claim honest concurrent user with respect to "Mercedes". |
| London Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Durex Products Inc., 1963 Supreme Court 1882 | Concurrent user accepted for a well-known mark in a particular context. | Concurrent user principle rejected for "Mercedes" given its global reputation. |
| I.L.R (1977) I Wippermann Jr Gmbh v. Wipperdrive Engineering | Acquiescence by registered owner in use of mark bars injunction. | Distinguished; plaintiff did not acquiesce in defendant’s use of "Mercedes". |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court emphasized the unique and worldwide reputation of the "Mercedes Benz" mark and its symbol, the three-pointed star, which has been associated with high-quality automobiles since at least 1951 in India. It rejected the defendant’s argument that "Mercedes" is a generic or common name, noting the absence of any Indian individual named "Mercedes" and the limited awareness of the South American city named Mercedes within India.
The court distinguished precedents cited by the defendant on the basis of the mark’s reputation and the nature of the goods involved. The principle of delay, which barred injunctions in cases involving less distinctive marks like "Doctor" or "Matador", was found inapplicable because "Mercedes" enjoys a far stronger and more exclusive reputation.
The court also rejected the applicability of honest concurrent user and acquiescence doctrines, holding that the defendant’s use of "Mercedes" on kitchenware products was a deliberate attempt to benefit from the plaintiff’s established goodwill and reputation. The court underscored that trademark law protects against such colourable imitation, especially when the mark is world-renowned.
Given the defendant’s established business and the illegitimate use of the mark despite legal notice, the court found no justification for permitting continued use of "Mercedes" on unrelated goods like casseroles and thermos flasks. The court further rejected the defendant’s request for time to dispose of existing stock, noting the defendant’s capacity to bear any loss resulting from ceasing use of the mark.
Holding and Implications
The court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from using the word "Mercedes" in connection with any casserole or thermos flask manufactured by them, ordering an immediate cessation of such use.
The direct effect of this decision is to protect the plaintiff’s globally recognized trademark from dilution and unauthorised use on unrelated goods, reinforcing the principle that famous marks are entitled to robust protection against colourable imitation. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing trademark principles to the facts of this case.
Mahinder Narain, J. (Oral):— I have heard the counsel for the defendant in extenso. Counsel for the defendant has referred to a large number of cases as to why the injunction should be refused in this case.
2. The mark and word in the instant case is “Mercedes”.
3. The words “Mercedes Benz” have been associated with a Car ever since I remember. This car had a device upon it; a three pointed star in a circle/ring. Both, the name and the device, have always, in my memory, been inextricably linked. I am unable to ignore this connection.
4. It was, however, registered in India in 1951. It is one of the most famous marks of the world.
5. I think it will be a great perversion of the law relating to Trade Marks and Designs, if a mark of the order of the “Mercedes Benz”, three pointed star, or the flying lady of Rolls Royce, are humbled by indiscriminate colourable imitation by all or anyone; whether they are persons who make flasks, kitchen utensils including casseroles, like the defendant, or any one else. Such a mark is not up for grabs - not available to any person to apply upon anything or any goods. That name “Mercedes” is well known in India, and world wide, with respect to cars, as is its symbol a three pointed star.
6. In any case, as long as I remember, “Mercedes” has been a status car, which very few of the car owners are able to afford to have today, or at any time. Mercedes happens to be a name of a woman. It does not exist as a name of woman in this country, and no Indian persona has been pointed out by counsel for the defendant during the course of arguments, having that name as an Indian, in India.
7. I see no reason why any one trader in India should adopt the name “Mercedes”, which is, as stated above, is associated with one of the finest engineered cars in the world, and use the same name with respect to ordinary goods, in this case kitchenware, particularly casseroles used in kitchen, or on dining table, and on picnics.
8. It is pleaded by counsel for the defendant that “Mercedes” is a city in South America. Most people in India have not heard of it. When I asked the counsel as to when he heard of it, he reflected, and said he was ignorant of it till just prior to filing of the written statement. I was unaware of it till I read the written statement.
9. One reason which is given by the counsel for the defendant for denying the injunction to the plaintiff, is that there is a great deal of delay in approaching this Court for injunction. The cases which are cited are 1992 Delhi 302, in which three years' delay with respect to a mark called “Doctor” was stated to be sufficient to disentitle a person from getting injunction. “Doctor” is a word of ordinary parlance. Very large number of doctors exist in this country, and commonly almost every one knows what a doctor means, what he does. This case cannot have a parallel with respect to word like “Mercedes” for the reason explained above.
10. The next case relied upon by Counsel is 1980 RLR 263. This case relates to the word “Matador”. The word “Matador” is English version, (of perhaps) a Spanish word. Matadors are persons who fight bulls. Bull fighting is a sport in Spain. The word “Matador” has no Indian implication. It was used upon certain type of combs. Those were imported in India. Most people did not use this type of comb. It was like other combs. It certainly did not have the same kind of repute as is enjoyed by “Mercedes Benz” car. I do not think that reputation of Mercedes Benz Car can be compared with the reputation “Matador”, which may have existed with respect to something like a hair comb. The principle of delay which disentitled the relief in the Matador case, could not and ought not be applied to a well known mark like “Mercedes”.
11. Another case relied upon by counsel for the defendant is 1963 Supreme Court 449 (Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta ). This was the case of mark “Amritdhara” v. the mark “Laxmandhara”. This case primarily turned upon the “honest concurrent user”. The Supreme Court carved out an area where the mark “Laxmandhara” was being honestly and concurrently used, and, therefore, the injunction was not granted with respect to the area which was carved out. That case has no application to a well renowned name, like “Mercedes Benz”. The advertisement of the defendant mentioned in the plaint would make it clear that the defendant cannot claim “Honest Concurrent User” in the instant case.
12. Another case cited is 1963 Supreme Court 1882 (London Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Durex Products Incorporated and another), relating to condoms. The condoms were being sold under the name “Durex”. It was a brand name on which the condoms were being sold in other parts of the world. In India, condoms were also being sold under the name “Durex”. The Court in the facts of the case, accepted that it was honest concurrent user. I do not think cases of concurrent user can be applied with reference to mark and names like “Mercedes”.
13. Yet another case cited by counsel for the defendant, is reported as I.L.R (1977) I Wippermann Jr Gmbh.…Plaintiff-Applicant v. Wipperdrive Engineering…Defendant-), of a single Judge of this Court. In this case, the mark “Wippermann” was registered. The registered owner did not take any steps. Therefore, the Court did not grant injunction. The Court found that the applicant had acquiesced in the respondent carrying on the business under the offending mark for more than five years.
14. There are marks which are different from other marks: There are names which are different from other names. There are names and marks which have become household words. Mercedes as name of a Car would be known to every family that has ever used a quality car. The name “Mercedes” as applied to a car, has a unique place in the world. There is hardly one who is conscious of existence of the cars/automobiles, who would not recognize the name “Mercedes” used in connection with cars. Nobody can plead in India, where “Mercedes” cars are seen on roads, where “Mercedes” have collaborated with TATAs, where there are Mercedes Benz - Tata trucks have been on roads in very large number, (known as Mercedes Benz Trucks, so long as the collaboration was there), who can plead that he is unaware of the word “Mercedes” as used with reference to car or trucks.
15. In my view, the Trade Mark law is not intended to protect a person who deliberately sets out to take the benefit of somebody else's reputation with reference to goods, especially so when the reputation extends world wide. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that use for any length of time of the name “Mercedes” should be not objected to.
16. We must keep in mind that the plaintiff company exists in Germany. An insignificant use by too small a product may not justify spending large amounts needed in litigation. It may not be worth while.
17. However, if despite legal notice, any one big or small, continues to carry the illegitimate use of a significant world wide renowned name/mark as is being done in this case despite notice dated 04.07.1990, there cannot be any reason for not stopping the use of a world reputed name. None should be continued to be allowed to use a world famed name to goods which have no connection with the type of goods which have generated the world wide reputation.
18. In the instant case, “Mercedes” is a name given to a very high priced and extremely well engineered product. In my view, the defendant cannot dilute that by user of the name Mercedes with respect to a product like a thermos or a casserole.
19. Counsel for the defendant seeks three weeks' time to dispose of the existing stock. In my view, Eagle Flask Industry is an established concern. It ought not to have adopted the name “Mercedes” with casserole. It has its own name, its own reputation, and it can very easily and conveniently bear the loss which will have to be sustained by it by not selling any of the casserole which it has wrongly chosen to mark “Mercedes”, forthwith.
20. It is not the case of the defendant that the defendant is only selling casserole bearing the name “Mercedes”, and no other casserole. It markets more than 50 types of thermos flasks bearing different names. In my view, destruction of the casserole, or non-use of the said goods should send a clear message to persons, at least of the eminence, of Eagle Flask Industries, that they should not demean other people's name and reputation by using the name like “Mercedes” with reference to the goods produced by them.
21. In my view, it is but right that the defendant should be restrained from using the word “Mercedes” with reference to any casserole or thermos which is manufactured by them, and in my view, injunction should issue, restraining the defendant to cease and desist from carrying on trade in any casserole or thermos flask in the name of “Mercedes” forthwith. So ordered.
22. I. A. stands disposed of.
23. The suit be listed before the Joint Registrar on 21.01.1994
Alert