MERCURY mark and trade-dress. The Plaintiff claimed to be in the business of manufacturing cards since 1951 through its predecessor. The Plaintiff stated that it has been selling its products under the trademark MERCURY and a distinct trade dress since 1963. The Plaintiff also claimed copyright in its logo/packaging.
The Plaintiff also stated that it had registrations for MERUCRY marks which were not renewed due to oversight. The Plaintiff also cited its fresh applications, advertising and promotion figures as well as turnover to establish its rights.
As per the Plaintiff, the defendant has adopted the mark MERUCRY for playing cards in a similar trade dress. As per the Plaintiff, the defendant has also filed a trademark application claiming use since 2018. However, no documents have been filed in support of this claim. The Plaintiff stated that this is a clear attempt to pass-off the goods of the defendant as those belonging to the Plaintiff and cause consumer confusion and deception.
In light of the above contentions, the Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case and passed an order restraining the defendant from using the trade dress and MERCURY mark.
A India Print House through its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v. Pavan Bansal, trading as Bajrang Traders [CS(COMM) 358/2022]. DHC Order dt. May 25, 2022