Observing that ‘VISTARA’ deserves to be declared as a well-known mark, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an aviation studies web portal, Pilot 18 Aviation Book Store, from selling products with the VISTARA mark..The Court has also directed the web portal’s owner to pay Rs. 2 lakh as costs to the operator of Vistara Airlines, Tata Sia Airlines Ltd..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a suit filed by the plaintiff Tata Sia Airlines against the defendant..The plaintiff had approached the Court after discovering that the defendant was offering various badges, name tags, and other accessories including mugs, baggage tags, etc., bearing the mark ‘VISTARA’ with an identical device mark/logo form. The merchandise was being sold on various e-commerce portals such as Amazon and Snapdeal..The plaintiff stated that the mark ‘VISTARA’ was registered in India, Singapore, and in various other jurisdictions..It was further submitted that the defendant wrongfully claimed that they were supplying ‘VISTARA’ branded aviation products to Vistara Airlines..The defendant, on the other hand, contended that it had not used the trademark ‘Vistara’ and that the plaintiff had concocted a false story..The defendant’s claim was, however, found to be false, as the Local Commissioner found a large number of products bearing the mark ‘Vistara’ in the inventory of the defendant..The Court recorded that the defendant had made a “grave misstatement” in the face of the Commissioner’s report. It also recorded that the defendant was not just selling products bearing the mark ‘VISTARA’, but products of various other airlines including Jet Airways, SpiceJet and Air India as well..The Court further stated that the sale of such merchandise with the names of various airlines was not only violative of the trademark rights of the respective parties, but also posed a serious threat owing to the fact that some unauthorised persons might try to seek entry into airports etc., on the basis of the counterfeit badges, labels, uniforms and other merchandise illegally bearing the trademarks of these airlines..The Court observed that the mark enjoyed enormous goodwill and reputation in the airline, travel and tourism industry and use of this mark, even in respect of unrelated services, would create confusion and deception..“The mark VISTARA is quite popular in India and has acquired a unique status. It is a distinctive mark that enjoys enormous goodwill and reputation in the airline, travel and tourism industry. Use of this mark, even in respect of unrelated services would create confusion and deception. It deserves to be declared as a `well-known mark’.”.In view of the above, the Court opined that the defendant was not only liable to be permanently injuncted from using the mark ‘VISTARA’, but were also liable to pay costs and damages..“…the incorrect statement made in the written statement also constitutes perjury before this Court, inasmuch as the Defendants had no remorse whatsoever while making the statement in the written statement that they have never used the trademark ‘VISTARA’. Clearly, the pleading in the written statement is not only a misstatement but clearly constitutes misrepresentation to the Court…”.Consequently, the owner of the web portal submitted that he regretted making the false statement in the written statement and the question of “further action” against him was deferred till the next date of hearing..The Court nonetheless imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on the defendants, payable to the plaintiff within a period of 1 month from the date of the order..Read the Order:
Observing that ‘VISTARA’ deserves to be declared as a well-known mark, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an aviation studies web portal, Pilot 18 Aviation Book Store, from selling products with the VISTARA mark..The Court has also directed the web portal’s owner to pay Rs. 2 lakh as costs to the operator of Vistara Airlines, Tata Sia Airlines Ltd..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a suit filed by the plaintiff Tata Sia Airlines against the defendant..The plaintiff had approached the Court after discovering that the defendant was offering various badges, name tags, and other accessories including mugs, baggage tags, etc., bearing the mark ‘VISTARA’ with an identical device mark/logo form. The merchandise was being sold on various e-commerce portals such as Amazon and Snapdeal..The plaintiff stated that the mark ‘VISTARA’ was registered in India, Singapore, and in various other jurisdictions..It was further submitted that the defendant wrongfully claimed that they were supplying ‘VISTARA’ branded aviation products to Vistara Airlines..The defendant, on the other hand, contended that it had not used the trademark ‘Vistara’ and that the plaintiff had concocted a false story..The defendant’s claim was, however, found to be false, as the Local Commissioner found a large number of products bearing the mark ‘Vistara’ in the inventory of the defendant..The Court recorded that the defendant had made a “grave misstatement” in the face of the Commissioner’s report. It also recorded that the defendant was not just selling products bearing the mark ‘VISTARA’, but products of various other airlines including Jet Airways, SpiceJet and Air India as well..The Court further stated that the sale of such merchandise with the names of various airlines was not only violative of the trademark rights of the respective parties, but also posed a serious threat owing to the fact that some unauthorised persons might try to seek entry into airports etc., on the basis of the counterfeit badges, labels, uniforms and other merchandise illegally bearing the trademarks of these airlines..The Court observed that the mark enjoyed enormous goodwill and reputation in the airline, travel and tourism industry and use of this mark, even in respect of unrelated services, would create confusion and deception..“The mark VISTARA is quite popular in India and has acquired a unique status. It is a distinctive mark that enjoys enormous goodwill and reputation in the airline, travel and tourism industry. Use of this mark, even in respect of unrelated services would create confusion and deception. It deserves to be declared as a `well-known mark’.”.In view of the above, the Court opined that the defendant was not only liable to be permanently injuncted from using the mark ‘VISTARA’, but were also liable to pay costs and damages..“…the incorrect statement made in the written statement also constitutes perjury before this Court, inasmuch as the Defendants had no remorse whatsoever while making the statement in the written statement that they have never used the trademark ‘VISTARA’. Clearly, the pleading in the written statement is not only a misstatement but clearly constitutes misrepresentation to the Court…”.Consequently, the owner of the web portal submitted that he regretted making the false statement in the written statement and the question of “further action” against him was deferred till the next date of hearing..The Court nonetheless imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on the defendants, payable to the plaintiff within a period of 1 month from the date of the order..Read the Order:
