Delhi HC Refuses Interim Relief To Rooh Afza Against Dil Afza Manufacturers

Shopping for a bottle of ‘sharbat’ could contain feelings, however to not the extent anticipated for by producers of ‘Rooh Afza’, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom mentioned whereas refusing to go an interim order to restrain ‘Dil Afza’ manufactures from allegedly indulging in trademark infringement. Hamdard Dawakhana and Hamdard Nationwide Basis (India) filed a lawsuit earlier than the Excessive Courtroom searching for safety in opposition to disparagement and dilution of their trademark ‘Rooh Afza’ by Sadar Laboratories Pvt Ltd’s ‘Dil Afza’.

The complainants sought an interim order of injunction in opposition to the defendant, contending that the 2 merchandise had been deceptively comparable because the phrases ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ entail deep feelings and that the phrase ‘Afza’ is frequent to each.

Justice Asha Menon mentioned that prima facie, Hamdard has constructed an enormous fame and goodwill in respect of their trademark ‘Rooh Afza’ however it will be excessive to imagine that using the phrase ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil’ would trigger confusion as a result of they connote deep emotion.

The courtroom acknowledged that there could possibly be no confusion as to the frequent client, the extraordinary use of the phrases, ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ didn’t denote the identical factor. “Shopping for a bottle of sharbat could contain feelings, however not deep to the extent hoped for by the realized counsel for the plaintiffs. In any case, those that recognize this deep emotion could be the primary to have the ability to distinguish between ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil’. Nonetheless, we’re involved with the frequent client, to whom, in extraordinary use of the phrases, ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ don’t denote the identical factor,” the choose mentioned in her order handed on Thursday.

“The similarity is sought on the bottom that ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ entail deep feelings and that the phrase ‘Afza’ is frequent to each… It might be taking an excessive place, even when the customers had been connoisseurs, to imagine that using the phrase ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil’ would trigger confusion as a result of they connote deep emotion,” she added.

The courtroom dismissed the complainant’s software for interim aid, saying that no case was made out to restrain the defendant from advertising and marketing its ‘sharbat’, and directed the defendant to keep up a real account of gross sales of ‘Dil Afza’ syrup/sharbat through the pendency of this swimsuit and to submit the identical to the courtroom on a quarterly foundation.

The defendant the grant of interim aid within the case and acknowledged that the phrase ‘Afza’, which meant rising or including, was frequent to the commerce of ‘sharbat’ and there have been many gamers available in the market who had been utilizing that phrase.

It was acknowledged that there was an incredible distinction between the phrases ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ as ​​effectively as the previous meant ‘coronary heart’ and the opposite meant ‘spirit’.

The defendant additionally knowledgeable that ‘Dil Afza’ was in use since 1949 and there has by no means been any confusion with the plaintiffs’ product.

Leave a Comment