- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
India Habitat Centre v. India Habitat Centre. Sunita Aeren
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff society filed a suit claiming ownership of the registered trademark 'India Habitat Centre' along with its logo under Registration Certificate numbers 854734, 854735, and 854736. These registrations pertain to various goods including paper articles, printed matter, photographs, furniture, and related items. The defendant was developing a project named 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' and was initially using a logo similar to the plaintiff's registered logo. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from reproducing the plaintiff’s logo and from using the words 'Habitat Centre' coupled with 'Indirapuram,' alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant changed its logo after the suit was filed, adopting a logo dissimilar to the plaintiff’s. Consequently, the court identified the principal issue as whether the defendant’s use of the phrase 'Habitat Centre' infringed the plaintiff’s rights, since the defendant no longer used a similar logo.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant’s use of the words 'Habitat Centre' coupled with 'Indirapuram' infringes the plaintiff’s rights, given that 'Habitat Centre' is not a registered trademark of the plaintiff.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from using the words 'Habitat Centre' in its business name.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff claimed ownership of the registered trademark 'India Habitat Centre' and its logo for specific classes of goods.
- The plaintiff argued that 'Habitat Centre' is a unique combination serving as its trademark and has been extensively used since 1987.
- Use of 'Habitat Centre' by the defendant would cause confusion, misleading the public into believing the defendant’s services are connected to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff asserted that such use by the defendant would amount to infringement, damage the plaintiff’s goodwill, and constitute passing off.
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant changed its logo to a design dissimilar from the plaintiff’s logo, thus negating the issue of logo infringement.
- The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s trademark registration was limited to specific goods and did not extend to the use of the phrase 'Habitat Centre'.
- The defendant argued that 'Habitat' and 'Centre' are common, generic words that cannot be exclusively owned or monopolized by the plaintiff.
- The defendant maintained that the use of 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' does not violate the plaintiff’s rights as it does not use the plaintiff’s registered name or logo.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Competition Review Private Ltd. v. N.N. Ojha (1996 PTC 16124) | Generic terms cannot be monopolized; absence of similarity in color scheme negates exclusive rights. | Used to illustrate that 'Competition' being generic did not confer exclusive rights to the plaintiff. |
| Rupee Gains Tele-Times Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupee Times (1995 PTC 384) | Descriptive words like 'Rupee' cannot be exclusively claimed as trademarks. | Supported the view that descriptive or generic terms are open for use by multiple parties. |
| J.R Kapoor v. Micronix India (1994 PTC 260, SC) | Common descriptive words ('Micro') do not mislead consumers and cannot be monopolized. | Reinforced the principle that descriptive terms are not distinctive trademarks. |
| SBL Ltd. v. Himalaya Drug Company (1997 PTC 17, DB) | Commonly used words or expressions descriptive of goods or trade cannot be exclusively claimed. | Applied to conclude that descriptive or generic words like 'Habitat Centre' cannot be exclusive property. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the defendant had changed its logo to one dissimilar from the plaintiff’s registered logo, removing the issue of logo infringement. The plaintiff’s registered trademarks pertain to specific goods and do not extend to the phrase 'Habitat Centre' itself, which is unregistered. The court observed that both 'Habitat' and 'Centre' are generic and descriptive words commonly used in the public domain, including by various government and private entities worldwide. The court relied on precedent establishing that generic or descriptive terms cannot be monopolized or exclusively claimed as trademarks. Given the widespread use of 'Habitat Centre' in various contexts, the court concluded that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights to this phrase or prevent its use by the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an injunction.
Holding and Implications
The plaintiff's application for interim injunction restraining the defendant from using 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' is dismissed.
The court held that the words 'Habitat Centre' are generic and descriptive, and cannot be exclusively owned by the plaintiff. The defendant’s use of the phrase does not infringe the plaintiff’s rights, especially after the defendant changed its logo. The direct effect is that the defendant may continue to use the name 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre.' No broader precedent was set, and the decision primarily affects the parties involved in this suit.
1. The plaintiff society has filed this suit claiming that it was owner of 'India Habitat Centre' with a logo vide Registration Certificate numbers 854734, 854735 and 854736 in respect of Paper and Paper Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper and Periodicals Books, Photographs, Stationery, Office Requisites, Instructional and Teaching Material; Furniture, Articles of Wood, Cane and Wicker; and Bed and Table Covers.
2. The defendant was coming up with a 'Habitat Centre' named as 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' and the defendant was using a logo similar to that of the plaintiff. The prayer of the plaintiff is that the defendant be restrained from reproducing logo of plaintiff in any material form and thereby infringing plaintiff's copyright in the logo. The other claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant be restrained from using word 'Habitat Centre' coupled with 'Indirapuram'. The plaintiff states that 'Habitat Centre' was a unique combination of words and serves as a trade mark of the plaintiff. It has been continuously and extensively used by the plaintiff since its formation in 1987. 'Habitat Centre' has become an identity signature of the plaintiff and it is identified by the common people with the services being provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was involved in bringing together various institutions and individuals interested in habitat and habitat related environmental issues in all facets. 'India Habitat Centre' was trading style of the plaintiff and 'Habitat Centre' in fact denotes and is associated with the plaintiff since its inception. Use of words 'Habitat Centre' in combination by any third party will lead to confusion as to source or the origin of the services provided by that party and therefore use of these words by defendant in 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' would give impression as if 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' was an institute or branch of 'India Habitat Centre' and the defendant would encash the goodwill of the plaintiff in marketing its own services while in fact the defendant had nothing to do with the plaintiff. In nutshell the arguments of the plaintiff is that the use of word 'Habitat Centre' by the defendant shall infringe the rights of the plaintiff, damage the cause of the plaintiff and shall amount to passing of the services of the defendant as that of plaintiff.
3. Counsel for the defendant, at the very outset, stated that the logo adopted by the defendant initially had been changed. The earlier logo had some similarity with the logo of the plaintiff. After filing of the suit, the defendant has changed its logo which is altogether different from that of the plaintiff's logo. I have perused the logo now having been adopted by the defendant and this logo has no similarity with the logo of the plaintiff. With this change in logo by the defendant, the question of infringement of trade mark of the plaintiff registered vide registration nos. 854734, 854735 and 854736 does not arise. A perusal of these trade marks would show that plaintiff's registered trade mark comprised of a caricature of the person with outstretched arms and a triangle in the centre and this caricature is contained within a circle bearing words 'India Habitat Centre' on the perimeter of circle. The trade mark was specifically registered for the articles mentioned in the Registration Certificate as stated above. Since the defendant has altogether changed the logo and the defendant 'Habitat Centre' was at the stage of construction of building, the question of infringement of these trade marks would not arise. Thus, the only question to be decided by the Court is whether the combination of words 'Habitat Centre' is the property of the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be allowed to use this combination 'Habitat Centre' coupled with 'Indirapuram' and the name of the defendant 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' violates the rights of the plaintiff.
4. Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff's trade mark was registered only for specific items as mentioned in the certificates. The defendant is not using the words 'India Habitat Centre' which is registered name of the plaintiff association, nor has any intention to use this trade mark. He submitted that 'Habitat Centre' is a common property, common to the business of clubs & habitat sites and the plaintiff has no exclusive right on words 'Habitat' or 'Centre'. It is submitted that 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' in no way violates the plaintiff's right in 'India Habitat Centre'. There cannot be a registration of or a right vested in anyone prohibiting others from using 'Habitat' or 'Centre' either as two separate words or in combination as 'Habitat Centre'. The plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over these words and pray for restricting other person from using these words separately or in combination.
5. It is admitted position that 'Habitat Centre' is not a registered trade mark of the plaintiff. The word 'Habitat' is a generic word taken from Latin word 'Habitatio' which means the process of inhabiting a house or home. In the field of ecology, the word 'Habitat' has been used in a broader sense as physical condition that surrounds species or species' population or assemblage of species or communities. This being a generic word, exclusivity to its use cannot be claimed by any person nor can be granted. The word 'Centre' is a descriptive word which indicates the place or the concentration of a thing. No one can claim exclusive use to word 'Centre'.
6. This Court in 1996 PTC (16124) Competition Review Private Ltd. v. N.N. Ojha (Competition Success Review) observed that 'Competition' was a generic term and in absence of similarity in colour scheme, the plaintiff could not claim exclusive use of the word 'Competition'. Similarly in Rupee Gains Tele-Times Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupee Times 1995 PTC (15) 384, this Court held that the word 'Rupee' was synonym with money and all financial journals and publications have been using the word business or financial or money for their journals and newspapers. Merely because one company has used word 'Rupee' to name its financial journal could not mean that the said word cannot be used by any other journal nor it can mean that the journal first using word 'Rupee' has acquired trade mark in the said word. 'Rupee' is a descriptive word not a distinctive word. In J.R Kapoor v. Micronix India.) 1994 PTC 260 (SC), the Supreme Court held that 'Micro' was a common/general name descriptive of the products which are sold or of the technology of by which the products are manufactured and as such the user of the products are not likely to be misguided or confused by the said word. In SBL Ltd. v. Himalaya Drug Company 1997 PTC (17) (DB), the controversy was between trade marks liv. 52 and LIV-T. It was held that 'Liv.' is an abbreviation of liver, a human organ and both the drugs pertain to ailments or diseases associated with liver functioning. It was held that where any symbol, word or expression or get up commonly used by traders in connection with their trade, in respect of such symbol, word or expression a particular trader cannot claim an exclusive right. It was further held that words, expressions or devices which are descriptive of particular goods or trades are open to use by all persons engaged in the trade.
7. The word 'Habitat Centre' only signifies a centre providing services in relation with environment, assembling of people for various kinds of activities and getting together for different purposes. Various authorities, agencies, government bodies have been using word 'Habitat Centre' for purpose of conveying that the place was being used for the purposes of facilities pertaining to habitat. The term 'Habitat Centre' has been in public domain and has been used either singly or jointly world over by hotels, companies and by various Government and non-Governmental organizations like 'ITES Habitat Centre' in Cochin, 'Karnataka State Habitat Centre' at Anjanpura. There is a chain of 'Habitat Centre' hotels in Zaragoza in Spain. There is a Science Habitat Centre website. The defendant has also stated that Greater Noida Habitat Centre Ltd., Kerala Habitat Pvt. Ltd and Gurgaon Habitat Centre are the registered companies having 'Habitat Centre' as part of their name.
8. I consider that 'Habitat Centre' cannot be the exclusive property of the plaintiff. Neither 'Habitat' nor 'Centre' can be allowed to become property of any person singly or jointly. The 'Habitat Centre', 'Cultural Centre', 'Health Centre', 'Shopping Centre', 'Activity Centre' are names which are in public domain and can be used by any person. The plaintiff does not have a prima facie case for injunction stopping defendant from using 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' as its name. The plaintiff is not entitled for interim injunction.
9. The applications No. 12280/2008) of the plaintiff under order 39 rules 1 & 2 cpc for grant of interim injunction is hereby dismissed and the application (IA No. 4459/2008) of the defendant No. 3 is allowed.
IA No. 13865/2008 (Order 39 Rule 2A CPC) In view of the orders passed on the interim injunction application, this application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
CS(OS) No. 2096/2007 List the suit for further proceedings on 22nd September, 2008
Alert