Introduction: The Delhi High Court recently adjudicated the case Amba Shakti Steels Ltd. v. Sequence Ferro Private Ltd., addressing critical issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The case involved Amba Shakti Steels Ltd. (the appellant) and Sequence Ferro Private Ltd. (the respondent), with the core dispute revolving around the alleged use of deceptively similar trademarks in the highly competitive steel industry.

Background of the Case: Amba Shakti Steels Ltd. filed the appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Commercial Court on 18.01.2024, which dismissed the appellant’s application for an interim injunction. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent from using the trademark “AMMAJI,” which it claimed was deceptively similar to its registered trademarks “AMBA” and “AMBA SHAKTI.”

The appellant, in business since 1989, is a renowned manufacturer of steel bars, billets, angles, and other ferrous and non-ferrous alloys. It adopted the trademarks “AMBA” and “AMBA SHAKTI” in 1993, securing registrations for various iterations of these trademarks. The appellant claimed that its products, known under these trademarks, had gained substantial goodwill and recognition in the market. It accused the respondent of using the trademark “AMMAJI” to deceive consumers and unlawfully benefit from the appellant’s market reputation.

Factual Context: The appellant’s trademarks, including “AMBA SHAKTI,” are registered under multiple trademark numbers in Class 06 (covering goods like steel bars and other related products). The appellant alleged that Sequence Ferro Private Ltd., which began using the “AMMAJI” mark in 2022, was attempting to pass off its goods as those of the appellant by adopting a confusingly similar name. The respondent applied for the “AMMAJI” trademark registration and sold TMT bars under this label in May 2023.

Rival Contentions:

• Appellant‘s Argument: The appellant contended that the respondent’s use of “AMMAJI” was intended to mislead customers into thinking that their products were associated with Amba Shakti Steels Ltd., given the phonetic and visual similarities between “AMBA” and “AMMAJI.” The appellant further emphasized its long-standing goodwill and substantial investments in promoting its brand over decades.
• Respondent’s Defense: Sequence Ferro Private Ltd. argued that the marks were distinct. They asserted that “AMMAJI” refers to a mother or grandmother in Hindi, while “AMBA” refers to the Hindu goddess. The respondent also claimed that the appellant had failed to take legal action against other companies using similar names, such as “AMBA GOLD,” weakening its claim of exclusivity over the “AMBA” name.

The Commercial Court, agreeing with the respondent, found that the two trademarks were not similar enough to warrant an injunction. It also noted that the appellant had not taken steps to prevent other entities from using the “AMBA” name, which influenced its decision to deny the interim relief.

High Court’s Observations and Analysis:

1. Phonetic and Visual Similarities: The High Court disagreed with the Commercial Court’s narrow view of trademark similarity. It emphasized that the question of infringement must be considered from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The Court highlighted the phonetic resemblance between “AMBA” and “AMMAJI,” noting that both words have the same literal meaning—mother. The suffix “JI,” commonly used as a mark of respect, did not alter the impression the two trademarks left.
2. Commercial Impression: The Court noted that both trademarks created a similar commercial impression. It examined the structure of the two labels, observing that both used red for the main word and blue for the product description, with similarly positioned numerals (500 in the appellant’s mark and 550 in the respondent’s). The similarity in appearance and impression led the Court to conclude that consumers could easily mistake one brand for another.
3. Comparison with Other Entities: While the respondent argued that other companies also used the “AMBA” name, the Court held that this did not diminish the appellant’s rights over its trademark. The mere presence of third parties using similar marks does not preclude a registered proprietor from protecting its brand from infringement. The Court further observed that many of the cited third-party names, such as “AMBAY STEELAGE,” were distinct or unrelated to the appellant’s business.
4. Balance of Convenience: The High Court considered the relative market strength of the two parties. The appellant’s turnover was significantly higher than the respondent’s, reinforcing the appellant’s market presence and goodwill. The Court reasoned that allowing the respondent to continue using a similar mark would cause irreparable harm to the appellant’s brand reputation.
5. Intent Behind the Respondent’s Trademark Adoption: The Court was sceptical of the respondent’s explanation for adopting the “AMMAJI” mark, which it claimed was a tribute to a family member. Given the striking similarities between the trademarks, the Court found the explanation unconvincing. It inferred that the respondent’s mark choice was likely motivated by a desire to benefit from the appellant’s established goodwill.

Judgment: The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commercial Court’s order. It granted the interim injunction, restraining the respondent from using the “AMMAJI” mark or any deceptively similar trademark until the final disposal of the suit. The Court ruled that the appellant had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Moreover, the Court acknowledged the potential confusion among consumers, which would irreparably harm the appellant’s brand.

Conclusion: The judgment reaffirms the principles of trademark protection, particularly the need to assess overall commercial impression rather than dissecting individual elements of competing marks. The decision also underscores the Court’s role in safeguarding consumers from confusion in cases involving competing brands with similar trademarks in identical industries.