Swiss Bike Vertriebs GmbH (Subsidiary of Accell Group) v. Reliance Brands Limited (RBL)
A significant trademark infringement case concerning deceptive phonetic and visual similarity between “RALEIGH” and “RALLEYZ”, along with imitation of bicycle trade dress.
Delhi High Court
CS(COMM) 25/2023 & I.A. 827/2023
Citation : 2024:DHC:1884
Judgment dated : 4 March 2024
Short Description About the Case
Swiss Bike Vertriebs GmbH, associated with the Accell Group and proprietor of the “RALEIGH” bicycle brand, approached the Delhi High Court against Reliance Brands Limited for using “RALLEYZ” on bicycles and related products. The plaintiff alleged that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to RALEIGH, both phonetically and visually, and that the defendant had also adopted a similar manner of displaying the mark and trade dress on bicycles.
Facts
The plaintiff was an international bicycle business and claimed rights in the RALEIGH brand, which had been used for bicycles in several countries, including India.
The defendant was using the mark “RALLEYZ” in relation to bicycles and bicycle-related products.
The plaintiff contended that RALLEYZ was deceptively and phonetically similar to RALEIGH, particularly because both marks were being used for identical goods, namely bicycles.
The plaintiff further pointed out that the defendant had placed the RALLEYZ mark on the crossbar of the bicycle in a manner similar to the plaintiff's RALEIGH mark. The plaintiff also alleged imitation of the Union Jack representation appearing above the mark on the bicycle.
The defendant, among other contentions, relied upon an earlier submission made by the plaintiff before the Trade Marks Registry, where the plaintiff had stated that RALEIGH was phonetically, visually and structurally different from another mark RALLIS.
Findings
The Court examined the competing marks, the nature of the goods, the manner of use and the overall presentation of the bicycles.
The Court considered the plaintiff's argument that RALEIGH and RALLEYZ were phonetically similar and that both marks were being used for identical goods.
Importantly, the Court also considered the plaintiff's previous statement concerning the dissimilarity between RALEIGH and RALLIS. The Court observed that this raised a question as to whether the plaintiff could simultaneously contend that RALEIGH was not phonetically similar to RALLIS but was phonetically similar to RALLEYZ. This issue was considered in the context of the plaintiff's prima facie claim.
Ultimately, the Court found sufficient grounds to protect the plaintiff at the interim stage and restrained the defendant from dealing in bicycles or bicycle-related products under RALLEYZ or any deceptively similar mark.
Suggestion
This case is particularly useful in matters involving:
Deceptive similarity
Phonetic similarity
Visual similarity
Trademark infringement
Trade dress
Prior user rights
Identical goods
Admissions made before the Trade Marks Registry
Interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC
For practical trademark matters, this case is especially useful where the defendant's mark is allegedly similar not only in name and pronunciation, but also in the manner in which the mark is displayed on the product.
It is also important for the proposition that a party's earlier representation before the Trade Marks Registry may become relevant when assessing its subsequent stand regarding similarity between competing marks.
Judgment
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's interim injunction application and restrained Reliance Brands Limited, its agents and others acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in bicycles or bicycle-related products under “RALLEYZ” or any other mark deceptively similar to “RALEIGH” during the pendency of the suit.
