N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd vs Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods

Abstract: The case of N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd vs Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods revolves around a trademark dispute concerning the use of the 'Cycle' mark in different product categories. N. Ranga Rao & Sons, a renowned manufacturer of incense sticks and dhoop, claimed exclusive rights over the 'Cycle' trademark, which they had been using since 1954. Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, however, contested this claim, asserting their prior use of the mark in relation to edible oils. The court ruled in favor of Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, applying the Prior Use Doctrine and dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

Keywords: Trademark dispute, N. Ranga Rao & Sons, Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, 'Cycle' mark, Prior Use Doctrine, trademark ownership, intellectual property, trademark infringement.

Hashtag: Trademark Dispute, Prior Use Doctrine, Intellectual Property, N. Ranga Rao, Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, Cycle Mark

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/@Sonisvision_Legal

?

?

?

Facts of The Case

N. Ranga Rao is a company that has been manufacturing and supplying incense sticks and dhoops since 1948. It is considered a pioneer in this field and has been using the 'Cycle' trademark nationally and internationally since 1954 without any interruptions. The 'Cycle' brand is registered under various classes, including food products, incense sticks, dhoop, and hair oil, and is also protected under The Copyright Act of 1957.

Recently, N. Ranga Rao discovered that Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods had filed an identical trademark in Class 29. N. Ranga Rao opposed this action, claiming that they had been using this trademark for several years and had exclusive rights over it. However, Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods argued that they had adopted the mark in the honest practice of edible oils and that there was no malicious intent. They also claimed that N. Ranga Rao did not file any document to prove that they would be dealing under classes 29 and 30.

Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods further argued that 'Cycle' is not a coined term, and exclusive rights for such a term cannot be granted.

?

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS

The plaintiff has argued that their trademark, which has been in use since 1954, has a great reputation among consumers from different countries. They have taken various steps to make their trademark famous, such as advertising and hosting various sports and cultural events, including international cricket matches. The goodwill, turnover, and effect on the public's mind are the factors that determine the trademark's reputation. Through these advertisements, the plaintiff has gained a significant market share worldwide. The mark 'Cycle' has attained a well-known status as per Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, its right to be protected under a section of the Act is established. The use of the mark 'Cycle' by the defendant for selling edible oil is detrimental to the reputation of the plaintiff's mark.

?

DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS

The plaintiff's trademark, which includes the name 'Cycle' and the phrase 'Cycle brand agarbattis', is only associated with agarbattis and has a strong reputation in this regard. The defendant argues that there is no connection between their product, which is edible oil, and the plaintiff's products, which include incense sticks and dhoop. The defendant's product is meant for internal use, while the plaintiff's products are meant for external use, and are not related to each other. The plaintiff has not provided any evidence to establish that they deal with food products, and their trademark registrations may be cancelled due to non-usage. The defendant claims that they have been using their mark since 2009 without any confusion arising from the plaintiff's mark and that the plaintiff's mark could harm their own.

?

COURT’S DECISION

The Prior Use Doctrine was applied in a case heard by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The court found that both parties had submitted documents proving that the plaintiff was a leading manufacturer of incense sticks and dhoop, while the defendant had been manufacturing edible oil under the name 'Cycle' for 7 years prior to the lawsuit. The court further found that there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff had used the disputed mark for edible oils. Therefore, the defendant was considered the prior user of the mark in the category of edible oil.

The court decided in favour of the defendant, as the trademark used by the defendant did not harm the plaintiff's mark. Both products were in different classes and had different uses. The court also noted that common words could not claim a monopoly, as they were frequently used by people in India. Additionally, the defendant was only using the mark for lawfully justified purposes, and both parties had been using the mark for over 8 years without any negative impact on their reputation. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and denied any injunction or relief.

?

Court Analysis

The High Court of Madras ruled in favour of Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods in the case of N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd vs Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods. The court upheld the Prior Use Doctrine to determine the rightful ownership of the 'Cycle' trademark in the context of edible oils. The court found that Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods had been using the mark in relation to edible oils for seven years prior to the legal proceedings. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, ruling in favour of Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, and denied any injunction or relief to N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd in this matter.