Competition Review (P) Ltd. v. N.N Ohja, Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff company, established in 1964, publishes a monthly magazine titled "Competition Success Review," with the word "success" added in 1971. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, starting around September 1995, published a magazine with an identical trade name "Competition Success Review," copying the plaintiff's distinctive layout, color scheme, question format, and content, thereby causing confusion and infringing on the plaintiff's rights. The defendants contend that they publish a magazine called "Competition Chronicle" since 1992, registered with the Registrar of Newspapers, and deny any infringement, asserting that the word "competition" is generic and widely used in various magazine titles. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing their magazine under the allegedly confusingly similar name.

Procedurally, the suit proceeded to an application for injunction, and interlocutory applications IA Nos 8819/95 and 9681/95 were disposed of. The suit was posted for framing of issues on 01.07.1996.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing a magazine under the name "Competition Success Review" or a deceptively similar name.

Whether the plaintiff can claim exclusive rights over the word "Competition" in the title of their publication.

Whether the defendants' use of a similar trade name and format constitutes infringement or passing off.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff's publication has a distinct trade name "Competition Success Review" with a specific and recognizable layout and design.

The defendants copied the same trade name, question format, and color scheme, causing confusion among the public, particularly students preparing for competitive exams.

The plaintiff claims proprietary rights in the trade name and seeks to prevent the defendants from using a deceptively similar name.

Defendants' Arguments

The defendants have been publishing "Competition Chronicle" since 1992, a name registered with the Registrar of Newspapers.

The word "Competition" is generic and commonly used in many magazine titles; thus, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over it.

The plaintiff has delayed enforcement of rights ("slept over") for more than three years.

The plaintiff cannot claim copyright over the word "Competition" despite registration under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Various other publications use the word "Competition," such as "Competition Master," "Competition Wizard," and "Competition Refresher."

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. v. Rupee Times, AIR 1995 DRJ 30	No exclusive right can be claimed over a generic word (here, "Rupee") and no scope for monopoly in such words.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the generic word "Competition."
Shri Prem Singh v. M/S. Ceeam Auto Industries, AIR 1990 Delhi 233	This precedent was cited by the defendants, but the court did not elaborate on its application in detail in this order.	The court considered the authority but did not base the injunction decision solely on it.
K.C Sashidhar v. Smt. Roopa, AIR 1993 Madras 120	Cited by defendants regarding rights over names and trademarks.	The court acknowledged the authority but did not explicitly apply it in the reasoning provided.
Amar Dutta v. Bijoli Grill Caterers, AIR 1985 NOC 141 (Cal)	Cited by defendants concerning rights over trade names.	The court noted the citation but did not elaborate on its application.
Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works v. Pomx Laboratory, AIR 1992 Delhi 302	Cited on the question of rights over names.	The court considered the authority but did not discuss its details in the order.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. v. Rupee Times, AIR 1995 DRJ 30

No exclusive right can be claimed over a generic word (here, "Rupee") and no scope for monopoly in such words.

The court relied on this precedent to hold that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the generic word "Competition."

Shri Prem Singh v. M/S. Ceeam Auto Industries, AIR 1990 Delhi 233

This precedent was cited by the defendants, but the court did not elaborate on its application in detail in this order.

The court considered the authority but did not base the injunction decision solely on it.

K.C Sashidhar v. Smt. Roopa, AIR 1993 Madras 120

Cited by defendants regarding rights over names and trademarks.

The court acknowledged the authority but did not explicitly apply it in the reasoning provided.

Amar Dutta v. Bijoli Grill Caterers, AIR 1985 NOC 141 (Cal)

Cited by defendants concerning rights over trade names.

The court noted the citation but did not elaborate on its application.

Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works v. Pomx Laboratory, AIR 1992 Delhi 302

Cited on the question of rights over names.

The court considered the authority but did not discuss its details in the order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the word "Competition" as a common English word and held that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over it merely based on copyright registration. The court observed that multiple publications use the word "Competition" in their titles, indicating its generic character in the relevant market. The plaintiff's claim that the defendants' publication started only in September 1995 was viewed as a contention for the purpose of the case. The court relied on the precedent from Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. v. Rupee Times, where it was held that no one can claim exclusive rights over a generic word. The court found no convincing similarity in the defendants' color scheme and did not find sufficient grounds to grant an injunction. The court chose not to delve deeper into the merits at this interlocutory stage and dismissed the petition for injunction.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for injunction.

The direct consequence is that the defendants are not restrained from publishing their magazine under the contested trade name at this stage. The court did not establish any new precedent and reserved detailed consideration of the merits for the trial. The decision emphasizes the principle that generic words commonly used in trade cannot be monopolized by any single party, particularly in the absence of distinctive proprietary rights.

Competition Review (P) Ltd. v. N.N Ohja

K. Ramamoorthy, J.:— The plaintiff has prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from publishing ‘Competition (Success) Review’ and from adopting the name deceptively similar to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated as follows:

2. The plaintiff Company started its business in the year 1964 in publishing the book Competition Success Review and the words ‘success’ added in the year 1971.

3. The trade name of the plaintiff Competition Review appears in a special and particular manner in para 4 of the plaint. The Plaintiff has given a description of this book. Para 4 of the plaint is as follows:

“That the trade name of the plaintiff “Competition review” appears in a special and particular manner on each of its monthly issue/publication. The word ‘Competition’ is written in small alphabets with a capital ‘C’, followed by the word ‘review’ below the word ‘Competition’ which is much smaller in size. The word ‘success’ is in a rectangular box below the word ‘Competition’ and before the word ‘review’ on the left side of the cover page. The word ‘Competition’ stretches across the front page followed by the word ‘Review’ below it on the right side of the front page. Oh top of the word ‘Competition’ the month of the issue/publication is given with the sale price of the magazine. The face of the front page depicts a pictorial representation or a collage of pictures covering more than half of the front page arid on the left side of the front cover there are writings about the salient features indicating the contents of the publication”.

4. The first defendant who is the Editor of M/s Chronicle Publications Pvt. Ltd., (defendant No. 1) alongwith defendants 2 and 3 in or about September 1995, inter alia, published identical publication appearing the same trade name ‘Competition Success Review. It is the case of the plaintiff that the publication of the plaintiff has many special features of specific interest to the general public and in particular to the students who wish to appear in the competitive examinations. It is the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendants have published, the same set of questions in the same format and also copied the questions and answers published by the plaintiff. It is also stated that the pattern adopted by the plaintiff is adopted by the defendants. It is contended by the plaintiff that the colour scheme of the journal is also adopted by the defendants.

5. The defendants filed written statement contending that the defendants started the magazine Competition Chronicle in the year 1992. The Chronicle Group of Publications is the trade name adopted by the plaintiff and the word Chronicle is published within the word competition. The Registrar of Newspaper has registered the name of the defendants magazine. According to defendants there are number of magazine covering as many as subjects as covered by the plaintiff's magazine such as Competition Master, Competition Wizard, Competition Refresher and the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the competition and the plaintiff has slept over for more than three years. The defendants contended that the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright in the words Competition which is generic and general one.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the Competition Master was published in the year 1959 and long before the plaintiff entered the market the word competition was being used and the plaintiff cannot claim any right on the premise that the plaintiff has registered its name under the Copy Right Act, 1957.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants referred to number of authorities namely, Shri Prem Singh…Plaintiff v. M/S. Ceeam Auto Industries…Defendant, AIR 1990 Delhi 233, K.C Sashidhar v. Smt. Roopa, AIR 1993 Madras 120, Amar Dutta v. Bijoli Grill Caterers, AIR 1985 NOC 141 (CAL), Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. v. Rupee Times, AIR 1995 Vol. 35 DRJ 30 : 1995 PTC 384 and also Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works.…Plaintiff; v. Pomx Laboratory…Defendant., AIR 1992 Delhi 302 on the question of ladies. I have considered the contentions of the parties in the light of documents filed by the parties and I am of the view that the plaintiff has not made out any case for injunction.

The word Competition is an English word. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right on the basis of registration under the Copyright Act. It is clear from the records that a number of persons are running journals under the word competition and the claim of the plaintiff that it came to know about the defendants journal in September 1995 is putforth for the purpose of this case. Under similar circumstances, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K Mahajan had occasioned to consider the question in Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. v. Rupee Times, DRJ (35) page 30. The learned judge has observed that no person can claim any exclusive right in the word Rupee. The learned Judge has also held that there is no scope for any description in the use of word Rupee. I respectfully agree with the reasoning given the learned Judge and I hold that the plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive of the word and I do not find any similarity in the colour scheme adopted by the defendant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties at the time of trial of the case. I have no hesitation in dismissing the petition for injunction. I do not want to enter into discussion on the merits in greater details at this stage.

8. IA Nos 8819/95 and 9681/95 stand disposed of.

9. Post the suit for framing of issues on 01.07.1996

I.A Nos. 8819/95 and 9681/95 in Suit No. 2114 of 1995

Competition Review (P) Ltd. v. N.N Ohja

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Defendants' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Competition Review (P) Ltd. v. N.N Ohja

Comments