Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v Gourav Bajaj & Anr. (2020)
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Gourav Bajaj & Anr. (2020)
Facts of the Case
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (Plaintiff) is a well-known company that has been using the trademark “BAJAJ” for decades. The company enjoys goodwill and reputation attached to the name.
Gourav Bajaj (Defendant) ran retail electrical appliance stores under the names “APNA BAJAJ STORE” and “BAJAJ EXCELLENT” and also operated the website apnabajajstore.com.
Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s use of the name “BAJAJ” in these businesses and domain name was unauthorized and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop defendant from using the mark and domain.
Legal Issues
Trademark Infringement:
Did defendant’s use of “BAJAJ” in his store names and domain create confusion or deceive consumers into believing his business was connected to Bajaj Electricals Ltd.?
Passing Off:
Did the defendant unfairly benefit from plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by using a similar mark?
Use of Own Name Defense:
Defendant was using his own surname (“Bajaj”). Could that justify his usage of the mark despite the plaintiff’s established rights?
Court’s Reasoning
Reputation and Goodwill:
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. has been using “BAJAJ” for many years and enjoys a strong reputation. The mark is well recognized among consumers.
Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion:
Defendant’s use of the name “BAJAJ” in shop names and domain was almost identical, which was likely to mislead the public into thinking the stores were affiliated with Bajaj Electricals Ltd.
Dishonest Intention:
The defendant failed to appear in court and provide any explanation or justification for his use of the mark. This silence suggested bad faith or at least a lack of defense.
Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm:
Plaintiff showed a prima facie case, and if defendant was allowed to continue using the name, it would cause irreparable damage to Bajaj Electricals’ goodwill. The balance of convenience favored plaintiff.
Use of Own Name Not Absolute:
The court held that even if a person uses their own surname, that use is not an automatic defense if it causes confusion or amounts to unfair competition.
Outcome
The court granted ad-interim injunction restraining Gourav Bajaj and his associates from using the mark “BAJAJ” in business names, labels, and domain.
Defendant was also restrained from using the domain apnabajajstore.com.
Significance
Protection of Well-Known Marks:
Even if a defendant’s surname is identical to a well-known trademark, the court prioritizes prevention of consumer confusion and protection of goodwill.
Passing Off and Infringement:
The case reinforced that passing off claims protect not only registered trademarks but also unregistered rights based on reputation.
Interim Relief:
Courts are willing to grant interim injunctions to prevent damage to established brands when a prima facie case is made out.
Related Case Law (Explained Internally)
This case is consistent with the principle that a defense of honest use of one’s own name will not succeed where such use results in confusion or deception.
Courts generally emphasize the likelihood of deception or confusion over technical ownership of names.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (well-known mark) |
| Defendant | Gourav Bajaj using “BAJAJ” in stores and domain |
| Key Issues | Trademark infringement, passing off, surname defense |
| Court Finding | Strong prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, bad faith |
| Relief Granted | Ad-interim injunction against defendant’s use of mark/domain |
| Legal Principle | Use of own name defense is limited; protection of goodwill paramount |
RELATED Blog
0 comments