In the case of M/s. Century Plyboards (I) Limited vs M/s. Shree Balaji Ply Center (CS (Comm.) No. 1000/2020 CNR No.: DLCT01-004173-2020) decided on August 7, 2024, M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd (Plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against M/s Shree Balaji Ply Center (defendant), accusing the defendant of trademark and copyright infringement, as well as of engaging in activities amounting to passing off, which purportedly damaged the plaintiff’s business and reputation.
The plaintiff, a prominent entity in the plywood industry, holds registered trademarks under the “CENTURY” brand, including variants such as CENTURY TERRASHIELD, CENTURY TERRAMITE, CENTURY SAFEWOOD, and CENTURY FURNITURE. The plaintiff’s flagship trademark, “CENTURY,” is extensively used for its range of plywood products and has garnered significant goodwill and reputation across India. The plaintiff also claimed ownership of copyrighted artistic works associated with the “CENTURY” trademark.
The allegations centred on the defendant’s purported use of identical or confusingly similar trademarks, specifically “CENTURY,” “CENTURYPLY,” and “SAINIK,” in connection with substandard plywood products, thereby allegedly misleading consumers and undermining the plaintiff’s business. The defendant, in its written defence, refuted the claims, asserting that it had never utilised the trademarks “CENTURY,” “CENTURYPLY,” or “SAINIK,” and denied any association with the plaintiff’s trademarks.
The plaintiff was called upon and was given several opportunities to furnish evidence in support of its claims and allegations. However, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence. The plaintiff heavily relied on an affidavit from Mr. Khanna, who was the authorised representative of the plaintiff, which alleged the defendant’s use of similar trademarks. However, this affidavit contained only second-hand information, lacking any direct or documentary evidence of the supposed infringement. The said deponent also never appeared for witness or cross-examination despite being given several opportunities to appear by the Court.
The plaintiff did not produce any customer complaints, invoices, or other documentation to demonstrate that the defendant was selling products under the disputed trademarks. Further, the plaintiff did not provide clear copies of the trademark registration certificates or any proof of ownership of the “SAINIK” trademark. Additionally, no witnesses were called to corroborate the allegations of trademark infringement or passing off by the defendant.
In matters of trademark infringement and passing off, the onus rests on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s actions were likely to cause confusion or deceive the public. In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, as it did not present substantial evidence linking the defendant to the alleged infringing activities.
On the other hand, the defendant also did not present any witnesses or evidence. However, the defendant’s stance was bolstered by the plaintiff’s lack of evidence, which the Court took into account when evaluating the merits of the case.
The Court dismissed the suit in light of the insufficient evidence and the plaintiff’s inability to substantiate its allegations. The plaintiff was not awarded any relief, including the injunction, damages, or litigation costs. The Court also granted the defendant actual costs, subject to the submission of a certificate detailing legal fees and expenses.
Conclusion
The Court’s order reaffirmed that the Plaintiffs must present unequivocal and convincing evidence to support claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, or passing off. Mere allegations without corroborating evidence are insufficient in Court. It was also highlighted that the Affidavits and claims must be substantiated with direct evidence, such as documentation, customer testimonies, or expert opinions, to establish the likelihood of confusion or deception in the marketplace. On the other hand, consistent failure to adhere to court directions, particularly in presenting evidence, can lead to the dismissal of the suit, as courts are not inclined to grant indefinite adjournments. It can also be observed in this case that in commercial litigation, defendants may be awarded actual costs if they successfully defend a suit, especially when the plaintiff has caused unnecessary delays or failed to adequately present its case.
This judgment highlighted the importance of thorough preparation and evidence-based litigation in intellectual property cases, emphasising that plaintiffs must adhere to procedural timelines and substantiate their claims with solid evidence.
