The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of Bridgestone Corporation, a Japanese multinational company, restraining the Indian firm M/S Merlin Rubber from infringing its trademark. The court ruled in Bridgestone's favor, awarding ₹34.41 lakh in damages for unauthorized use of the 'Bridgestone' trademark under the deceptively similar name 'Brimestone.'
Case Background
Bridgestone Corporation, established in 1931, is a leading global manufacturer of rubber products, including tyres and tubes for automobiles. The company holds trademark registrations for 'Bridgestone' in over 130 countries, including India, where it is recognized as a well-known mark.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response on Regulatory Mechanism for Disabled-Friendly Taxi Apps
In April 2022, Bridgestone discovered that the defendant, M/S Merlin Rubber, was selling butyl tubes for two-wheelers and four-wheelers under the name 'Brimestone' through an online trade directory. Bridgestone argued that the name 'Brimestone' was structurally, visually, and phonetically similar to its registered trademark, leading to consumer confusion.
On April 28, 2023, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, preventing the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or promoting products bearing the 'Brimestone' mark. The court also appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises.
Read Also: X Corp's Stance on SAHYOG Portal: Legal Arguments and Court Developments
The Local Commissioner’s report confirmed the presence of a significant quantity of infringing products. Further investigations revealed that the defendant had been selling these counterfeit goods for three years, gaining substantial financial benefits. Despite legal notices, the defendant continued its infringing activities.
Justice Amit Bansal ruled that a clear case of trademark infringement was established. The court noted:
“The defendant has wrongfully gained substantial financial benefits from the unauthorized sale of counterfeit products under the mark 'Brimestone', which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bridgestone.'”
Read Also: Supreme Court Forms National Task Force to Address Student Mental Health Concerns
Additionally, the court held that the defendant had engaged in unfair competition by exploiting Bridgestone’s reputation and goodwill.
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained M/S Merlin Rubber from using the 'Brimestone' trademark or any other deceptively similar mark.
Regarding damages, the court referred to previous rulings that emphasized stringent penalties for deliberate trademark infringement. The judgment stated:
“A party that chooses not to contest legal proceedings must suffer the consequences of damages as determined by the court, ensuring that counterfeiting and piracy are not condoned.”
Read Also: Justice Yashwant Varma Transferred to Allahabad HC Amid In-House Inquiry Over Cash Controversy
Based on financial calculations, the court awarded Bridgestone ₹34.41 lakh in compensatory damages. Additionally, the company was granted the right to recover litigation costs, with the Taxation Officer assigned to determine the exact amount.
Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber (CS(COMM) 254/2023)