Delhi Court Grants Panasonic Life Solutions Relief Against Fake 'Anchor' Products

In an order passed on October 18, District Judge Vidya Prakash at the Commercial Court, Tiz Hazari ruled that the individuals were engaged in passing off and trademark infringement, and ordered them to stop using the 'ANCHOR' mark in any form

As per Panasonic Life Solutions, it is a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation and is one of India's leading manufacturers of electrical switches, wiring accessories, fans, lighting, etc. It has used the mark 'ANCHOR' for decades.

The company alleged that some traders were manufacturing and selling fake products such as switches, sockets, and wiring devices that carried its registered 'ANCHOR' mark, logo, and packaging. In response, Panasonic filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of all counterfeit materials, asking the Court to restrain those involved from infringing its trademark.

At the start of the case, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct raids at the premises of those suspected of counterfeiting. The raids led to the seizure of large quantities of fake goods, packaging boxes, and stickers imitating Panasonic's brand.

Panasonic supported its case with the Commissioners' reports, trademark registration certificates, photographs of the seized goods, and sales records. The company also showed that its 'ANCHOR' mark enjoys strong consumer recognition and goodwill.

Those accused denied any role in the counterfeiting and claimed they were not connected to the raided premises. However, the Court noted that none of them provided credible evidence to counter Panasonic's claims or the findings of the Commissioners.

The Court held that 'ANCHOR' is a registered and well-established trademark, and that the imitation of this mark was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the counterfeit goods came from Panasonic.

Relying on the apex court's ruling in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022) , the court reiterated that when identical marks are used for identical goods, consumer confusion is presumed.

Ruling in favour of Panasonic, it held,  “In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendants were manufacturing/stocking, distributing and selling goods bearing falsified trade mark/label of the plaintiff and therefore, trademarks and copyright of plaintiff are required to be protected.”

Accordingly, the court permanently restrained those involved from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any products using the 'ANCHOR' mark or any deceptively similar mark. It also prohibited the use of counterfeit packaging, labels, or trade dress resembling Panasonic's brand.

Each person was ordered to pay Rs 75,000 in damages, along with costs, and to surrender all infringing materials seized during the raids.

Case Title: Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Gumber & Ors.

Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 2589/2022

Appearance:

For the Plaintiff: Advocate Shravan Kumar Bansal