BRIEF
| PARTICULARS | PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT |
| Trade mark |  / TECHNOSPORT |  / TECCHNOPLUSS |
| Registration / application status | Registered under application no. 1819411 and 5434922 on 18″ May, 2009 and 04″ May, 2022 respectively | Applied under no. 5755973 dt. 09.01.2023 as “Proposed to be used” basis in Class 25. Subsequently, amended the trade mark application to . The Plaintiff has opposed the application before the Trade Marks Registry. |
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of trade mark, copyright, and passing off, against the Defendant for infringing its prior used and registered trade mark “TECHNOSPORT” under registration no. 1819411, by adopting a deceptively similar mark . Both the marks fall under class 25.
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS:
Qua its turnover: The Plaintiff through its predecessor has been continuously, openly and extensively using its trade mark TECHNOSPORT since 2009, and have a combined annual turnover of Rs. 2,28,07,36,029/- in the FY 2021-22.
Qua knowledge: The Plaintiff came across the application for registration of the impugned mark “TECDRISPORT” filed by the Defendant in March 2024, and immediately filed an opposition against the same. The Plaintiff in July 2024 became aware that the Defendant is marketing and manufacturing garments under the impugned mark at Delhi.
Plaintiff also submitted its registration portfolio for the trade mark TECHNOSPORT and its formative marks.
It was submitted that the Plaintiff has also applied for copyright registration, namely “” and the device of the running man “
” under no. 123780 and 123781 both dated 03.05.2023. It was further submitted that the above works to be considered as original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
Plaintiff also submitted its sales record for the last 8 years, as tabulated below:
It was contended that the Defendant’s trade mark is deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s registered and copyrighted trade mark. Below is the comparison of the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark and the Defendant’s impugned trade mark.
| Comparison of the Trade Marks | |
| Plaintiff’s Registered Trade mark | Defendant’s Impugned Mark |
| |
COURT’S FINDINGS:
The Hon’ble Court vide Order dt. 03.12.2024 passed an ad-interim ex parte injunction against the Defendant, restraining it from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting- for sale, trading in or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in manufacture and sale of garments or similar or like or allied goods under the impugned mark / TECCHNOPLUSS.
Advocates appearing for Plaintiff: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Ms. Prashansa Singh, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Tanmay Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Mr. Yashveer Singh and Ms. Archna, Advocates
