Vistara Gets ₹20 Lakh As Damages In Trademark Infringement Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday awarded ₹20 lakh in damages to Tata Sia Airlines in its trademark infringement suit against a Chinese e-commerce company. The infringing company based out of China was found guilty of selling keychains and baggage tags bearing the ‘VISTARA Marks’ in the aubergine and gold colour combination. The infringing mark was deceptively similar to the trademark belonging to the airline company.

What Vistara's trademark infringement case against AliExpress is all about?

In July 2020, Vistara Airlines received information about the sale of keychains and baggage tags on the eCommerce website AliExpress. The products had the infringing ‘VISTARA Marks’on them. During the hearing, Tata Airlines alleged that the website of  AliExpress contained several listings by the defendant of infringing baggage tags and keychains bearing the ‘VISTARA Marks’ without the authorisation of the plaintiff, which were eligible for shipping to India. 

Vistara is a well-known trademark under Indian Law

The plaintiff further emphasised that Vistara being a well-known trademark under Indian law, merits the highest degree of protection conferred under the law across all classes, which includes against disparate goods and services.

Vistara's counsel also pointed out the possibility of confusion on account of the goods being displayed and offered for sale by the defendant through an e-commerce platform; unwary customers may be misled into believing that there is an association or an endorsement by the plaintiff of the goods offered for sale by the defendant.

 The defendants did not contest the trademark infringement claim

At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the defendants did not contest the trademark infringement case against the company. To this, the court said, 

"It is trite law that where the defendant, despite being served with an injunction order, chooses not to contest the suit, the same fortifies that it is indulging in activities complained of by the plaintiff in the plaint. Considering the fact that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the ‘VISTARA Marks’ and none has entered appearance for the defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant has no justification for the adoption of an identical trade mark for sale of their goods."

On the aspect of infringing a well know trademark like Vistara, the court held that such an act constitutes as unfair competition and dilution of the well-known trademark.