CHENNAI : The Madras High Court rejected a plea from Aachi Masala Food Private Ltd at Anna Nagar, known for its masalas, to restrain another firm from manufacturing and selling products by using similar phonetic sounded words/expressions. The first bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan rejected the plea, while dismissing an appeal from Aachi.
The appeal was preferred against a decreetal order passed by a single judge on December 16, 2009, on an application.
Originallly, Aachi Masala filed an application in 2008 to restrain the other company from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale of masala, spices using the trademark Aachi or Aarcee or any other similar sounding expressions, pending disposal of the suit.
When the matter came up on February 7, 2008, the court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent company from using the plaintiffs’ label in respect of ‘Asafoetida Sachet’ alone, since there was phonetic and visual similarity. But the firm stated that it would continue to use the trademark ‘Aarcee in MEGHA MASALA, The REAL CHOICE’, as before.
On December 16, 2009 applicant prayed for an interim injunction in respect of other items also. There is a visual and phonetic similarity in all the other items manufactured and marketed by the other company under the trademark ‘AARCEE’. It also submitted that trademark ‘AARCEE’ was not registered in favour of the respondent.
Denying the allegation, the counsel added that the company had obtained registration for trademarks ‘AARCEE MASALA, Aarcee in Megha Masala and RC Masala’ in June, July and December 2007 respectively.
After hearing the submissions made on either side and also perusing the material available on record, a single judge on December 16, 2009, dismissed the applicant’s application. Hence, the present appeal.Since the words ‘Aarcee in Megha Masala, The Real Choice’ is printed on all the labels of the respondent’s items and the words ‘Megha Masala’ is printed in big letters. There is no phonetic or visual similarity, the first bench said and dismissed the appeal.