Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'DYNAFRESH' In Trademark Dispute With Anchor's 'DYNA'

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel against an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining him from using the trademark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners.

Relying on the Registrar of Trade Marks' unchallenged finding that 'DYNAFRESH' was deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited's registered trademark 'DYNA', the court held that Patel's adoption of the mark was not bona fide.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing Patel's appeal against the injunction granted in Anchor's trademark infringement and passing off suit.

Anchor claimed that Patel's mark "DYNAFRESH", used for air fresheners, was deceptively similar to its registered trademark "DYNA", which it has used for soaps and other personal care products since 1999.

The Single Judge had found a prima facie case of passing off and restrained Patel from using the mark. The judge also held that the rival marks were deceptively similar and that Patel's adoption of "DYNAFRESH" lacked bona fides.

The Division Bench noted that the Registrar of Trade Marks had already concluded that Patel had "no bona fide adoption of the subject mark." It said the Registrar reached that conclusion after Patel failed to substantiate his user claim despite being given ample opportunities.

Patel argued that the respondent had suppressed material facts by not placing on record 45 GST-paid invoices filed with his second trademark application, which, according to him, showed use of the mark since June 5, 2021. The court rejected the contention. It held that the Registrar's quasi-judicial findings at the prima facie stage eclipsed those invoices.

"The findings in this order dated 29.07.2024, at prima facie stage eclipses the 45 GST paid tax invoices relied upon by the Appellant with its second trademark application no. 6978521 to setup a plea of user since 05.06.2021.", the court ruled.

The bench also questioned Patel's decision to file a second trademark application for the same mark without disclosing that his first application had already been rejected. It observed:

"This Court fails to understand, the legal basis on which the Appellant can maintain a second trademark application for the impugned mark 'DYNAFRESH' when its earlier trademark application has been dismissed on merits including on the ground that it is in conflict with the Respondent's registered mark 'DYNA'.", the court noted.

The court went on to hold that the second application was "ex-facie not bona fide for failing to disclose the order dated 29.07.2024 and is infact an illegal attempt to overreach" the order dated July 29, 2024. It further observed that the application was liable to be held barred by the doctrine of estoppel in view of the Registrar's findings.

Rejecting Patel's allegation that Anchor had suppressed material facts, the bench observed,

"We are unable to agree with the Appellant that there was any suppression of material facts by the Respondent in the plaint so as to merit vacation of the impugned order and/or the dismissal of the interlocutory application."

The court also noted that Anchor had placed on record Amazon listings showing Patel's products since 2021. Therefore, the Single Judge was aware of the appellant's attempted use of the mark from that period.

Finding no reason to interfere, the bench held that the detailed reasons recorded by the Single Judge justified the grant of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The appeal was dismissed along with all pending applications.

Patel's recall application before the single judge, which he had chosen not to pursue, was also dismissed as withdrawn