Goethe-Institut E.V. Vs Abhishek Yadav & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognizes the rights of a prior user and protects its rights. The rights of prior user are recognized as superior than that of the registration and that even the registered trademark holder cannot disturb/interfere with the rights of the prior user.
Facts- By way of the present application, the plaintiff seeks injunction for restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, i.e., MAX MUELLER/ MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE/ or any other mark which contains or is similar to the earlier used mark of the plaintiff, MAX MUELLER/MAX MUELLER BHAVAN, either as a trademark or part of trademark, trade name or part of a trade name, corporate name, electronic mail, domain name or part of a domain name, or in any manner, which would amount to passing off.
Conclusion- Held that Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognizes the rights of a prior user and protects its rights, which remain unaffected by any registration in favour of a party, who is a subsequent user.
Held that the plaintiff has prima facie established its prior user as well as goodwill and reputation, on the basis of the documents on record. Injunction is a relief in equity, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the same is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Great prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff if interim relief is not granted to the plaintiff. Accordingly, interim injunction is granted thereby restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, MAX MUELLER/ MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE/, during the pendency of the present suit.
