IP Case Law › Trade Marks › New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 11(1)Section 27(2)Section 28(1)Section 28(3)Section 29Section 34
Provisions considered: Sections 11(1), 27(2), 28(1), 28(3), 29 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Brief facts
New Balance Athletics Inc., proprietor of the N-marks used on footwear since the 1970s globally and since 1986 in India, sought an ad interim injunction against Astormueller AG and its Indian subsidiaries, who sold footwear under the brand NUBEAT using marks including the word mark 'nu:beat' and standalone logo marks 'n:' and a circular 'n:' device. Both parties held Indian trade mark registrations for their respective marks. The Defendants had used the nu:beat marks in India only since April 2024. New Balance alleged infringement and passing off, while the Defendants argued that the marks were dissimilar, that a registered proprietor cannot be sued for infringement by another registered proprietor, and that no monopoly could be claimed over a single letter.
Issues before the Court
- Whether the Plaintiff can maintain an action for infringement or passing off against Defendant No. 1, who is also a registered proprietor of the impugned marks in India.
- Whether the rival marks are deceptively similar so as to cause confusion.
- Whether the Plaintiff can claim exclusivity over the single letter 'N', or whether the letter is common to the trade and register.
- Whether the Plaintiff has established the three ingredients of passing off, namely goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.
- Whether prior use of the N-marks in India since 1986 gives the Plaintiff a superior right over Defendants who commenced use only from April 2024.
- Whether registration of the Defendants' marks operates as a bar to grant of interim injunction in a passing off action.
Court's findings
The Court applied the classical trinity test of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage, and the initial interest confusion standard, holding that a consumer need only be placed in a state of wonderment as to association for confusion to be established. The Defendant's own explanation to the Trade Marks Registry, describing 'n:' as a stylised combination of the letters 'n' and 'B', undermined its defence, since this reading brought the mark phonetically closer to the Plaintiff's well-known NB mark. The Court also noted that the Defendants had already given up standalone use of a plain 'n' device early in the proceedings. The plea that 'N' was common to trade was rejected for lack of evidence of substantial third-party use, and the Court declined to rely on the Defendant's search report from a private platform. The order was expressly stated to be tentative and prima facie.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the injunction application in part, restraining the Defendants from using the standalone logo marks 'n:' and the circular 'n:' device, or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's N-marks, holding that passing off was made out. The Court held that the word marks 'nu:beat' and 'n: nu:beat' were not deceptively similar to the N-marks and could continue to be used.
Key legal principle / ratio
Registration of a mark is no defence to a passing off action, since rights under Section 27(2) are independent of and override the bar in Section 28(3) on one registered proprietor suing another for infringement. Registration merely recognises pre-existing common law rights and does not create new rights, so a prior user's rights prevail over a subsequent user's registration. A single letter can acquire distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long and extensive use, entitling it to protection despite the general rule against monopoly over individual alphabets. In comparing composite marks, courts apply the anti-dissection rule but assess overall impression, and where a common dominant element is identical, an added minor element such as punctuation does not dispel deceptive similarity.
Keywords
Anti-Dissection Rule Deceptive Similarity Initial Interest Confusion Passing Off Prior User Registered Proprietor v. Registered Proprietor Well-known Trademark
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAmrit Singh Mehta trading as Mehta Cosmetics v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Where a trade mark is registered after its normal renewal date, the proprietor is entitled to a six-month period from the actual date of registration to seek renewal. Further, a trade mark cannot be removed for non-renewal without…
Form O-2Form O-3Registration CertificateRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of Trademark