M&M wins case to protect brandname

New Delhi, Nov 19: The Rs 3,000 crore corporate giant Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (M&M) got a boost with the Supreme Court affixing its stamp of approval on a Bombay High Court order restraining a paper mill from using a deceptively similar name ‘Mahendra and Mahendra’.

“The division bench of the Bombay High Court cannot be faulted for confirming the order of injunction passed by the single judge of the high court,” said an apex court bench comprising Justice DP Mohapatra and Justice Shivaraj V Patil.

Mahindra and Mahindra stated that in August 1996, it came to know the existence of a company named Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd after it came across a prospectus in respect of the latter’s public issue. The M&M contended that the words used by the paper mill were phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical and in any event deceptively similar. M&M said the paper mill by using such a deceptively similar name intended to “pass off or likely to pass off its business and products as those of M&M by trading on the goodwill and reputation of M&M”.

Justice Mohapatra, writing the judgement for the bench, agreed with the contention of M&M while dismissing the appeal filed by the paper mill against the order of the high court and imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 on the paper mill.

However, the bench said the question whether M&M’s claim of “passing off action” against the paper mills would be accepted or not would be decided by the trial court after evidence was led in the suit.

M&M, in its pleadings, said the trademark of ‘Mahindra’ created through years of hardwork was a popular brand and people associated quality with it. “The name and trademark ‘Mahindra’ is prominently used and displayed on all its products as also promotional materials,” it said, adding the trademark enjoyed high reputation in India and many other countries.

In reply the paper mills said the words ‘Mahendra and Mahendra’ was in continuation of their business name, which they had been using continuously for various business since 1974. Terming the name ‘Mahendra’ to be an household name in Gujarat, the paper mills said in no way its products were similar to the products of M&M.

After taking note of the rival contentions, Justice Mohapatra said “it is clear that the plaintiff has been using the word ‘Mahindra’ and ‘Mahindra and Mahindra’ in its companies/business concerns for a long span of time extending over five decades.

— PTI