Trademark infringement case: Pidilite gets HC relief
While issuing the restraining order, Justice Gautam Patel observed that Waltech’s LWC is too similar to LW/LW+, with a similar label, device and container, which is prima facie an infringement.
In a relief for Pidilite Industries Limited, the Bombay High Court has restrained Platinum Waltech Limited from selling its waterproofing product over apparent infringement of the trademark of Dr Fixit LW and LW+, Pidilite’s range of waterproofing products. This means Platinum Waltech can’t manufacture, sell or advertise its product LWC. The court has also imposed a cost of Rs 2.5 lakh on Waltech.
While issuing the restraining order, Justice Gautam Patel observed that Waltech’s LWC is too similar to LW/LW+, with a similar label, device and container, which is prima facie an infringement.
According to Pidilite’s counsel Hiren Kamod, they came across Waltech’s product in October 2020. Apart from an almost indistinguishable container design and colour, with letters LCW prominently displayed on it. Just like LW/LW+, it has the picture of a man wearing a yellow construction helmet.
Globally recognised Pidilite has been manufacturing industrial and textile resins and organic pigments since 1969. Its PIDIPROOF, PIDIPROOF LW and LW have been in use since 1993.
Kamod contended that Pidilite has a range of waterproofing products under the brand of Dr Fixit, which is distinctive and features a unique yellow-gold and blue colour combination in horizontal bands.
S Kazi, advocate for Waltech, argued that there were differences in design as their container featured a young man with a suit and tie. Besides, LWC is a common usage for waterproofing solutions and hence it cannot be said that they have copied Pidilite’s trademark, he argued.
Justice Patel, however, rejected the submission in the context of trade mark and copyright law. The court did not even agree with the defence argument that LWC stood for ‘liquid waterproof / waterproofing compound’. “… The ipse dixit (a person’s own assertion without relying on any authority or proof) of the defendant does not make it so,” added Justice Patel.
Interestingly, Platinum Waltech did not mention when it started using the said container with the LWC mark. “Indeed, that is a curious omission because nowhere in the affidavit do I find any mention of two singularly important aspects: (a) when the defendant adopted the mark; and (b) how it came to adopt this mark,” observed the court.
Justice Patel observed: “Given the plaintiff’s (Pidilite’s) sales, it is inconceivable that the defendant would have been unaware of the plaintiff ’s market presence. The plaintiff has a global presence and its products are known throughout the length and breadth of this country.”