Rajasthan High Court Upholds Injunction Over 'DURGA' Mustard Oil Trademark, Cites Public Interest

The Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with an interim injunction restraining the use of the trademark “DURGA” for mustard oil.

The court said trademark infringement affects not just the parties to the dispute but also consumers and the wider public, as it can cause confusion and deception.

A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the commercial court that had granted a temporary injunction against the appellant, restraining him from manufacturing or selling mustard oil under the mark “DURGA” or any deceptively similar trademark or packing label.

The trademark infringement suit was filed by Vinayak Corporation, which said it has been manufacturing and selling mustard and groundnut oil under the trademark “DURGA” since 1999. The mark was registered in 2018 and later assigned to the company through duly recorded assignment deeds. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the appellant.

Vinayak alleged that the appellant-Vinod Kumar Mehta had commenced sale of mustard oil under the mark “TRIBAA DURGA” using a deceptively similar label, colour scheme, and logo depicting Goddess Durga, thereby creating a likelihood of consumer confusion and misappropriation of goodwill. On these allegations, the commercial court granted interim relief.

Challenging the injunction, the appellant argued that “DURGA” is a common word referring to a Hindu deity and is incapable of exclusive appropriation. It was contended that several traders use the word “DURGA” and that mere depiction of the same deity does not amount to infringement when the overall visual representation and mode of expression differ substantially.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court reiterated that while comparing trademarks, courts must assess the overall commercial impression, the essential and dominant features of the marks, and the likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Upon examining the rival packaging produced before it, the bench observed:

“We are of the considered opinion that, the nature of the product being identical and the use of the logo depicting Goddess 'DURGA' create an overall impression as if the common product is likely to have been manufactured and marketed by the same company, thereby giving rise to confusion in the minds of the general public.”

The Court rejected Mehta's contention that widespread use of the image of Goddess Durga diluted the Vinayak's rights, holding that such prevalence does not negate statutory rights flowing from valid trademark registration.

Finding that the product category was identical and that both the logo and trademark were deceptively similar, the bench held that no ground for interference was made out and that it was in the larger interest of the general public to allow the interim injunction to continue.

The Court further emphasised that trademark infringement affects not only the disputing parties but also consumers and the general public due to the risk of confusion and deception, and that public interest must be a paramount consideration while adjudicating trademark infringement disputes.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

For Appellants: Advocate Ashok Soni, assisted by Advocate Yash Dadhich; Advocate Prateek Charan; Advocate Aditya Soni; Advocate Milap Chopra

For Respondents: Advocate Rajesh Joshi, assisted by Advocate Naman Mohnot; Advocate Anirudh Kothari; Advocate Himanshu Pareek