Trademark Leading Case: Laxmikant v Patel v Chetanbhai Shah (AIR 2002 SC 275)
In this case, the plaintiff has expanded his business by incurring substantial expenditure on advertisement and by incorporating the word ‘Muktajivan’ in all stationary materials, albums, sign-board, etc. The defendant who was carrying on similar business in the name and style of ‘Gokul Studio’ is intending to commerce business through his wife by adopting the name and style of ‘Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio’. A passing-off action was initiated by the plaintiff. The court held in favour of the plaintiff.

The court observed: The name under which a business trades will almost always be a trademark (or if the business provides services, a service mark, or both). An action for passing-off will lie wherever the defendant company’s name or its intended name or brand name, is calculated to deceive, and so to divert business from the plaintiff or to occasion a confusion between the two businesses or trades. The ground is not to be limited to the date proceeding; the court will have regard to the way in which the business may be carried on in the future, and to its not being carried on precisely as carried on in the future, and to its not being carried on precisely as carried on at the date of the proceeding. Where there is a probability of confusion in business or trade, an injunction will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name innocently.

The court further observed: The definition of ‘trademark’ under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is very wide and means, inter alia, a mark capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. Mark included amongst other things name or word also. Name includes any abbreviation of a name.

In the present case, the plaintiff used “QSS” as prefixed to ‘Muktajivan Colour Lab’, which was lacking in the name and style of the defendant. However, the ‘QSS’ is an abbreviation, the elongated or full from whereof is ‘Quick Service Station’ and that was merely and adjective prefixed to the name. It is the word ‘Muktajivan’ the employment of which makes distinctive the business name of the plaintiff and if is the continued use of ‘Muktajivan’ in the plaintiff’s business name which has created a property therein linked with the plaintiff.