The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining an entity from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear in a trademark infringement suit instituted by Bata India Limited. The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed an appeal filed by Leayan Global Private Limited challenging a 2019 order of a Single Judge that had granted the injunction in favour of Bata. In addition to dismissing Leayan’s appeal, the Bench also dismissed Bata’s separate appeal to the extent it sought to challenge the Single Judge’s finding on the use of the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”, holding that it was permissible provided no undue prominence was given to the word “POWER”.
Bata had alleged that Leayan’s use of the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear infringed its registered trademark “POWER” and that the dominant element of Leayan’s mark was similar to Bata’s mark. Bata contended that it was the registered owner of the trademark “POWER”, which it used in association with its footwear products, and that the adoption by Leayan of the mark “POWER FLEX” would lead to consumer confusion due to the similarity between the two marks when used for similar goods. Bata argued that the use of “POWER FLEX” suggested a connection with Bata’s existing “POWER” branded products, especially in the footwear segment, and highlighted the longstanding use and reputation of its mark in the market.
The High Court noted that Bata had extensive rights in the trademark “POWER” and that Leayan did not possess any registration for “POWER FLEX” or any closely related mark in any class, nor could it claim rights as a registered user or permissive user within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act. The Bench observed that Leayan’s lack of trademark registration was significant and that it could not independently continue to use the impugned mark. Bata’s submissions included assertions about the possibility of expanding the use of the “POWER” mark into different categories of footwear, including leather footwear. The court accepted that there was a likelihood of an average consumer, familiar with Bata’s “POWER” brand used for canvas footwear, perceiving “POWER FLEX” as a sub-brand or extension of Bata’s products when encountered in the market.
The High Court held that the similarity between “POWER” and “POWER FLEX” was such that confusion could occur among consumers, and the prominent shared element “POWER” in both marks increased the risk of association. The Bench further observed that while the distinctiveness of the mark “POWER” might be less pronounced in relation to unrelated goods such as boxing gloves or electrical items, it was a distinctive mark in connection with footwear due to its established use by Bata. The court, therefore, concluded that Bata’s “POWER” mark could not be said to be lacking in distinctiveness in the context of footwear products, reinforcing the likelihood of confusion if the impugned mark were used by Leayan.
In evaluating Bata’s appeal regarding the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision allowing its use, subject to the condition that undue emphasis was not placed on the word “POWER”. The Bench explained that the tagline, as used by Leayan, emphasized the leather content of the footwear and did not give prominence to the word “POWER” in a manner that would lead to confusion with Bata’s trademark. The court observed that an average consumer, when reading and recollecting the tagline as a whole, would likely interpret it as highlighting the material aspect of the product rather than associating it with Bata’s branded footwear.
The Division Bench, in dismissing both appeals, reaffirmed that there was no statutory impediment to granting the injunction in favour of Bata and against Leayan for the use of the mark “POWER FLEX” in respect of footwear. It noted that Bata’s registered mark “POWER” was distinctive in the relevant field and that Leayan did not have rights to use “POWER FLEX” either as a registered proprietor or as a permitted user. The court’s order thus maintained the interim protection for Bata by restraining Leayan from using the impugned mark while permitting the use of the tagline in a manner that did not disproportionately emphasize the word “POWER”.
The judgment highlighted the legal principles governing interim injunctions in trademark infringement cases, particularly the requirement to prevent likely confusion among consumers due to similarity between marks used on similar goods. In upholding the injunction, the High Court recognized Bata’s established rights in the “POWER” trademark and concluded that the adoption of “POWER FLEX” by Leayan for footwear was likely to mislead or confuse consumers into believing that the products originated from or were associated with Bata’s brand. The court’s decision ensured continued protection of Bata’s trademark rights at the interim stage of litigation while allowing limited use of the tagline that did not conflict with the established mark.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.