The Delhi HC has restrained defendant from manufacturing mask printed with Delhi Public School Logo. (Delhi Public School Society vs Manish Tripathi)
In the first week of June, 2020 the plaintiff (DPS Society) received video from Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan, who is running Delhi Public School in Bangalore and Mysore in collaboration with the plaintiff informing about a news on the national television about broadcasting of a report of manufacture of face mask with the trademarks ‘Delhi Public School’ and the logo of Delhi Public School/DPS printed thereon and that the schools have charged ₹350/- to ₹400/- for one mask from its students. Thereafter the plaintiff got the matter investigated into and found that the defendant Manish Tripathi, a fashion designer was selling mask incorporating the impugned trade mark and copying the trade mark of the plaintiff under his brand name ‘Namastay Away’. The plaintiff also came across brochures of the defendant wherein different designs and styles of mask bearing the impugned trade mark are depicted in a manner so as to confuse and deceive the students, parents and the public at large.
The plaintiff (DPS Society) is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 since the year 1948. As per the plaintiff in the year 1948 the plaintiff first conceived and adopted the distinctive Crest of the school which comprises of a hand holding a torch (mashaal) along with the school motto ‘Service Before Self’ and the words ‘Delhi Public School’ written inside a shield device with other distinctive artistic features comprised therein. Therefore, the plaintiff is the first owner of the said artistic work in terms of the provisions of the Copyright Act. Also, Plaintiff’s logo is registered under the Copyright Act. Further, the trademarks of the plaintiff ‘Delhi Public School’, ‘DPS’, etc. are also registered under the Trademarks Act in various classes as depicted in para-8 of the application.
On the perusal of the facts, the Delhi HC said that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no ad-interim injunction is granted the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Also, the Court said that Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the HC has restrained the defendant, its agent, partners, employees etc. from manufacturing masks.
Read Complete Order: Click Here
Image Courtesy: The Hindu