03 Feb The respondents were restrained from using the marks CENTRAL PARK, PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK or any other mark which was deceptively similar to the appellants’ mark CENTRAL PARK

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. V/S Provident Housing Limited

The present suit is filed by the appellants Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., in the Honourable High Court of Delhi before Honourable Justice Jayant Nath, seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from using the mark CENTRAL PARK, PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK. [IA No. 5445/2019 in CS (COMM) 194/2019, Decided On: 17.02.2020]

The appellants state that they are registered proprietor of the marks CENTRAL PARK/ ‘CENTRAL PARK RESORTS’, and ‘CENTRAL PARK RESORTS & RESIDENCE’. According to
the appellants they have procured various registrations of trademarks and have ‘CENTRAL PARK’ as the integral and most prominent feature. Further on account of extensive use, high revenues, extensive publicity, trademark registrations, etc. the ‘CENTRAL PARK’ marks are today exclusively associated with the appellants and their services.

The appellants plead that the respondents are using the mark, PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK in a manner where the words ‘CENTRAL PARK’ are deliberately highlighted and are prominent. It is the contention of the appellants that the respondents have identically used their registered ‘CENTRAL PARK’ mark and have prefixed their name ‘PROVIDENT’ with the words ‘CENTRAL PARK’ making it deceptively and confusingly similar to the appellants’ trademark. It is also pleaded that the word ‘PROVIDENT’ is not a distinguishing feature and thus for all practical purposes, the respondents’ mark PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK is identical to the appellants’ mark CENTRAL PARK. Also the respondents are using their mark in relation to services that are identical to the services offered by the appellants, i.e. Real Estate Development. Hence, it is pleaded that there is bound to be confusion amongst the purchasing public and members of trade as to the origin of the services of the respondents.

On 01.03.2019 the appellants were served with a copy of an application in which the respondents took the plea that the words CENTRAL PARK form a part of several real estate projects, it also mentioned that the name PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK was constructed by the respondents.

The appellants state that from the perusal of the website of the respondents, i.e. www.providenthousing.com they learnt that the respondents were using the mark PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK and had pre-launched their housing and real estate projects under the said mark in Bengaluru. It is pleaded by the appellants that a perusal of the respondents’ website makes it evident that the adoption of the mark PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK by the respondents is a calculated attempt to take advantage of the reputation gathered by the appellants on the mark CENTRAL PARK over the years. Further the appellants also highlighted that the respondents were using the appellants’ CENTRAL PARK marks both in appearance and commercial impression. Hence, the present suit was filed by the appellants.

The appellants are seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from using the mark CENTRAL PARK, PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK or any other mark which is similar or deceptively similar to the appellants’ mark ‘CENTRAL PARK’ in relation to their business, thereby infringing the appellants’ statutory rights in their ‘CENTRAL PARK’ mark. Other connected reliefs such as passing off, unfair trade practice, damages and delivery up etc. are also sought.

The respondents filed a reply to the application and also pleaded that the word/mark CENTRAL PARK was generic and public juris.

The court in the present suit concluded that the respondents were restrained from using the marks CENTRAL PARK, PROVIDENT CENTRAL PARK or any other mark which was similar or deceptively similar to the appellants’ mark CENTRAL PARK. The respondents were directed to take appropriate steps within one week and accordingly the application was disposed of.

Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 2