{"id":50173,"date":"2022-10-18T15:03:25","date_gmt":"2022-10-18T09:33:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/?p=50173"},"modified":"2022-10-18T15:06:23","modified_gmt":"2022-10-18T09:36:23","slug":"trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Dispute between Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. &#8211; A Complete Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The case of Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. was an outcome\nof the infringement of legal rights obtained by a registered trademark under\nthe Trademarks Act 1999. The case brought into question the use of the term\n&#8220;bona fide&#8221;, as mentioned in section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\nThe order of the case was passed on 6<sup>th<\/sup> October 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title ez-toc-toggle\" style=\"cursor:pointer\">Page Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-toggle-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Overview_of_the_Trademarks_Act_1999\" >Overview of the Trademarks Act, 1999<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Case_analysis_of_Varun_Gems_vs_Precious_Jewels_and_Ors\" >Case analysis of Varun\nGems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Sections_Involved_in_the_Case\" >Sections Involved in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Issues_of_the_Case\" >Issues of the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Arguments_of_the_Case\" >Arguments of the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#The_Decision_of_the_Case\" >The Decision of the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-dispute-between-varun-gems-vs-precious-jewels-and-ors\/#Case_Analysis\" >Case Analysis<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Overview_of_the_Trademarks_Act_1999\"><\/span><strong>Overview of the Trademarks Act, 1999<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A <a class=\"text-primary\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/trademark-registration\"><strong>Trademark<\/strong><\/a> can be a name, sign or mark that separates one business from the other. It acts as a symbol of business recognition and ensures trust, quality and service of a particular business to be its own. By registering a trademark, a business ensures that its name, mark or sign cannot be used by any other business or any other competitor in the market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The law of\ntrademark in India had no existence before 1940. It had caused several problems\nof registered and unregistered trademark infringement resolved by the <strong>Specific Relief Act, 1877<\/strong> and the <strong>Indian Registration Act, 1908<\/strong>. Later,\nin <strong>1940<\/strong>, the government enforced <strong>Indian Trademark Law<\/strong><sup><a class=\"text-primary\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_trademark_law\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/sup>\nto overcome these issues. The demand for trademark protection increased\nsignificantly after the law was introduced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The <strong>Trademark and Merchandise Act, 1958<\/strong>\nreplaced the Trademark law to protect trademarks and prevent merchandise fraud\nor misuse. The Act also allowed the registration of trademarks to get legal\nrights over them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, the Trademark\nand Merchandise Act of 1958 got replaced by the <strong>Trademark Act of 1999 <\/strong>by the government. The Act complied with <strong>TRIPS (Trade-related aspects of intellectual\nproperty rights)<\/strong> recommended by the World Trade Organization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Objective of\nthe Trademark Act 1999 is to provide security and protection to the registered\ntrademark users and provide legal remedies for implementing them. It gives the\nright the police to arrest in cases of infringement of trademarks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_analysis_of_Varun_Gems_vs_Precious_Jewels_and_Ors\"><\/span><strong>Case analysis of Varun\nGems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors.<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case between the parties (Appellant) Varun\nGems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. (Respondent) was decided by the High Court of\nDelhi on 6<sup>th<\/sup> October 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Mr\nJustice Vibhu Bakhru<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Mr\nJustice Amit Mahajan<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the Case <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The facts of the\nVarun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. are that\nthe Appellant M\/s Varun Gems has been running a jewellery business under the\nregistered trademark \u201cRakyan\u2019s Fine Jewellery\u201d. &nbsp;Mr Jitendra Kumar Rakyan is the Managing\nPartner of M\/S Varun Gems and is also related as the paternal uncle of\nrespondent number 2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The background of the case is that in 1951, one late\nsh. Sital Dass Rakyan, the father of Mr Jitendra Kumar Rakyan, started up a\njewellery business in Delhi under the name <strong>M\/s\nSital Dass &amp; Sons<\/strong>. Subsequently, in 1961, Mr. Sital Dass Rakyan formed\na partnership between four partners-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Mr.\nSurendra K Rakyan <\/li><li>Mr.\nRajendra K Rakyan <\/li><li>Mr.\nVirendra K Rakyan and <\/li><li>Mr. Jitendra\nK Rakyan <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>One year later, in 1962, Mr Surendra K Rakyan retired\nfrom the business and moved to Jaipur to start his separate business named \u201cRakyans\nJewellers&#8221; in partnership with his uncles. The remaining three partners stayed\nin Delhi, continued with the same jewellery business under different names, and\ngradually constituted their firms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, in 1978, all the partners of<strong> M\/s Sital Dass &amp; Sons<\/strong> formeda new partnership firm named <strong>Virendra Kumar and Co<\/strong>., which was later\nreconstituted as <strong>Sital Dass Sons<\/strong> in\n1982. After that, all the partners of the newly constituted partnership firm <strong>Sital Dass Sons<\/strong> started theirseparate businesses under the name\nSital Dass jewellersat various\nplaces in Delhi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2000, <strong>Jitendra\nK Rakyan<\/strong> opened a shop at M-31, M-Block Greater Kailash, New Delhi and got the\ntrademark of \u201c<strong>Rakyan fine jewellery<\/strong>&#8221;\nin 2005. The trademark was registered under the name of the partnership firm &#8220;<strong>Varun Gems<\/strong>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, in the year 2011, Mr Rajendra K Rakyan&#8217;s son\nand Mr Jitendra K Rakyan&#8217;s nephew- <strong>Mr\nRavi Rakyan <\/strong>alsoopened a shop at\nM-32, M-Block Greater Kailash, New Delhi, by the name \u201c<strong>DIAMEZ<\/strong>\u201d which was located right next to Jitendra K Rakyan\u2019s shop. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, in the year 2012, The name \u201c<strong>DIAMEZ<\/strong>\u201d was changed to \u201c<strong>Neena and Ravi Rakyan<\/strong>&#8220;, which\ncaused an Issue trademark dispute between the name &#8220;<strong>Rakyan fine jewellery\u201d <\/strong>registered as a trademark under the firm\n\u201cVarun Gems\u201d and \u201c<strong>Neena and Ravi Rakyan<\/strong>\u201d\nof Ravi Rakyan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An <em>ex-parte<\/em>\ninjunction was granted in an order dated 1<sup>st<\/sup> June 2012, where the\nrespondents were restrained from using the name \u201c<strong>Rakyan<\/strong>\u201d or any other mark which is deceptively similar or identical\nto their trademark \u201c<strong>Rakyan\u2019s Fine\nJewellery<\/strong>.&#8221; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondents appealed the decision to the division\nbench and later, to Supreme Court. The Hon&#8217;ble Apex court vacated the Injunction.\nThe appeal was filed for the order which had vacated the Injunction under the\nfollowing reasons &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The\ncourt concluded that the hoardings of both shops did not have any similarity.<\/li><li>According\nto Section 35 of the Act, there is no prima facie case in favour of the\nplaintiff. Therefore, there was no reason to restrain the defendant, so the\nimpugned order was quashed and set aside, and interim relief was granted in\nfavour of the plaintiff.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The proceedings were not participated by the\nrespondent, and an Ex parte order was passed on 11<sup>th<\/sup> July 2017,\nwhere the Appellant led the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even though the respondent had not contested the suit,\nthe single learned judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the SC had\nremoved the interim Injunction on the following grounds- <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The\nplaintiff was not entitled to Injunction given Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which allows anyone to run a business in his name in a <em>bona fide<\/em> manner. The defendants were\nrunning a business in their name in a <em>bona\nfide<\/em> manner, which was not a dispute. <\/li><li>Also, both parties were from\nthe same family, and the whole family has been running the jewellery business. <\/li><li>Also, there were no\nsimilarities found between the hoardings of both businesses. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sections_Involved_in_the_Case\"><\/span><strong>Sections Involved in the Case <\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case of Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. Involved rules\nand regulations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in the proceedings. The laws\ninvolved are as follows- <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Section 2 (m),<\/strong> <strong>Trade Marks\nAct, 1999- <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>\u201cMark\u201d<\/em><\/strong><em> includes a device,\nheading, brand, label, name, ticket,&nbsp;\nsignature,letter, word, numeral, packaging, shape of goods or\ncombination of colours or any combination thereof.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Section 35, Trade Marks Act, 1999- <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Saving for the use of the name, address or description of goods or\nservices- <\/strong>Section 35 of the Act explains that no\nproprietor or a registered user of a registered trademark shall interfere with\nany bona fide use of the name of a person or his place of business or any\ncharacter or quality of his goods or services. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Section 28, Trade Marks Act, 1999-<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rights conferred by registration<\/strong>&#8211;\nSection 28 of the Act gives exclusive right to the trademark proprietor to use\nthe mark about goods and services in respect of which the same is registered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999-<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Infringement\nof registered Trade Marks-<\/strong> Section 29 of the Act\nprovides that a registered mark is infringed by a person who, not being a\nregistered proprietor or assignee, uses a mark which is identical and\ndeceptively similar in relation to the said goods and services and also if the\nuse of the said mark is likely to confuse the part of the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_of_the_Case\"><\/span><strong>Issues of the Case<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Issue raised\nin the case Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and\nOrs. Was that the court had rejected the Appellant\u2019s plea for restraining the\nrespondent from using the name &#8220;Rakyan&#8221; or any other name or mark\nsimilar to their registered trademark &#8220;Rakyan&#8217;s Fine Jewellery&#8221; and\nallowed the respondent to use the name for his business. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_of_the_Case\"><\/span><strong>Arguments of the Case<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Issue raised\nby the case Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and\nOrs. Led to the argument that the order of dismissal of the Injunction was <em>ex-facie<\/em> erroneous and based on the <em>prima facie<\/em> view of the court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An argument was also raised that the evidence, once\nsubmitted, must be accepted unless it&#8217;s contradicted by way of cross-examination\nand is sufficient to dislodge the <em>prima\nfacie<\/em> view that the plaintiff is not entitled to Injunction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Appellant also raised an argument stating that he\nhad no objection if the respondents continued to use the impugned mark or name\nunless it was not used in connection with the business from the adjoining\npremises or in the same market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Decision_of_the_Case\"><\/span><strong>The Decision of the Case<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. The court had\nset aside the Judgement passed by the Single Judge, which vacated the\nInjunction. The court, in the order dated 6<sup>th<\/sup> October 2022, put an\nInjunction on the respondent from using the name \u201cRakyan\u201d\u2019 or any other name or\nmark similar to their registered trademark \u201cRakyan\u2019s Fine Jewellery\u201d, from any\nshop which is located within a radius of two km of the Appellant&#8217;s premises. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Analysis\"><\/span><strong>Case Analysis<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case of Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors.\nhas highlighted the use of the term &#8220;bona fide&#8221;. The plaintiff,\nduring the case, had established that they had done various activities to\npromote the brand \u201cRakyan\u2019s\u201d and \u201cRakyan\u2019s fine jewellery\u201d. The plaintiffs also\nestablished that the defendant\u2019s business name was \u201cDIAMEZ\u201d earlier, which had\nbeen changed to \u201cNEENA AND RAVI RAKYAN\u201d, which caused confusion between both\nplaintiff and the defendant&#8217;s businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With this evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it can be said that the use of the name &#8220;Rakyan&#8221; was not bona fide in nature. The fact that they had changed their business name from \u201cDiamez&#8221;, as mentioned earlier, and that the business was commenced from the adjoining premises is sufficient to conclude that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read Our Article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-infringement-meaning-types-and-remedies\/\">Trademark Infringement: Meaning, Types and Remedies<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The case of Varun Gems vs. Precious Jewels and Ors. was an outcome of the infringement of legal rights obtained by a registered trademark under the Trademarks Act 1999. The case brought into question the use of the term &#8220;bona fide&#8221;, as mentioned in section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The order of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":50175,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[2789],"acf":{"service_id":"0"},"authorName":"Snehita Shukla","authorImageUrl":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-84.jpg","authorDescription":"Snehita has her qualifications in B.Com LLB and LLM, and holds a specialization in Corporate &amp; Financial Laws and Policy. She is hardworking, dedicated and sincere. She has a great command in english and has great problem solving, critical thinking  and writing skills which makes her stand out of the crowd. She has a keen interest in legal research work and content writing, she also has a hold in legal research methodology. She loves to take challenges and to explore new topics to research on. She aims to improve her knowledge and skills through her experience.","postViews":3346,"readingTime":6,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50173"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50173"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50177,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50173\/revisions\/50177"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50175"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}