Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge restraining the sale and advertisement of products under the trademark "METERIVA" on the ground that such usage is likely to deceive or cause confusion with the plaintiff's well-known trademark "METRAVI." The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 25, 2025, which had confirmed an earlier ex parte injunction. The Division Bench concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of passing off and found sufficient evidence of deceptive similarity and misrepresentation warranting protection under common law.

The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by the plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of digital clamp testers, multimeters, and similar instruments under the mark "METRAVI," a mark that has been in use since 1998. Initially launched by Mr. Vikram Raj Bhansali through his partnership firm M/s Arun Enterprises, the mark was later assigned to the plaintiff company, which was incorporated on March 25, 2009. The assignment took place via a deed dated December 17, 2015, transferring the trademark and associated goodwill.

Also Read: Supreme Court Defines Scope Of Section 11 SARFAESI | Disputes Between Banks Must Go To Arbitration | Mandates That Section 11 Is Mandatory And Does Not Require Prior Arbitration Agreement

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a company incorporated on November 16, 2016, began using the mark "METERIVA" for similar products in 2022 despite being aware of the plaintiff's mark. The plaintiff asserted that the mark "METERIVA" was deceptively similar in structure, phonetics, and visual presentation to "METRAVI," and that it was used for identical goods falling within Class 9. The defendant had approached the plaintiff in June 2022 with an expression of interest to distribute plaintiff's products, which the plaintiff viewed as evidence of the defendant's awareness of the METRAVI brand.

Following this, the plaintiff discovered in January 2024 that the defendant had not only registered the mark "METERIVA" but was actively marketing, advertising, and selling products bearing the impugned mark, including via the website www.meteriva.com. The plaintiff filed the suit IP (COM) No. 7 of 2024 and sought an interim injunction, which was granted ex parte on April 8, 2024. The defendant's subsequent application to vacate this interim relief was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated February 25, 2025.

In its opposition, the defendant contended that the mark "METERIVA" was an original creation derived from combining "METER," a generic term, with "IVA," a term claimed to have Slavic and Hebrew origins meaning "God is gracious." The defendant denied knowledge of the plaintiff's trademark at the time of adopting its mark and stated that their products featured a distinctive design, including a sine wave graphic and different colour schemes, distinguishing them from the plaintiff's products.

The defendant also argued that there was no phonetic similarity between the marks and that their target consumer base consisted of technical professionals unlikely to be confused. It relied on various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to support the contention that visual and phonetic dissimilarities should negate any claim of passing off.

The plaintiff rebutted these claims, submitting evidence of continued and extensive use of the METRAVI mark, including domain name registration since 1998, multiple invoices from as early as 2007, a detailed product catalogue, and annual turnovers reflecting significant market presence. The plaintiff also pointed to search results from Amazon that showed METERIVA products appearing in response to searches for METRAVI, indicating actual confusion.

The Division Bench examined the jurisprudential basis of goodwill and passing off, stating "The passing off action is essentially an action in deceit where the common law rule is that no person is entitled to carry on his or her business on pretext that the said business is of that of another."

In examining the plaintiff's claim of goodwill, the Court noted that despite the plaintiff's balance sheet reflecting no intangible assets, substantial revenue figures, consistent business operations, and expenditures on advertising corroborated the existence of goodwill. The Court stated “The continuous ascension of the plaintiff’s business and the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in advertising its products... are prima facie strong indicators of the plaintiff commanding substantial goodwill in the market."

On the issue of misrepresentation, the Bench noted communication between the defendant and the plaintiff's director in June 2022 and subsequent use of the similar mark by the defendant. The Court remarked "We are prima facie satisfied that the defendant was aware... that the plaintiff was already using a similar trademark and was sufficiently established in the market."

Assessing the risk of consumer confusion, the Court held "Goods sold under the mark ‘METERIVA’ are likely, if not certainly, to deceive any person into believing them to be those sold under the mark ‘METRAVI’, more so on the online platform."

The Court was not persuaded by the defendant’s explanation for choosing the mark METERIVA, calling it implausible. It further observed "In the case at hand the defendant has denied having knowledge about the plaintiff’s mark... In any case the explanation offered... does not appeal to us."

Also Read: Madras HC Upholds Rights Of NRIs In Legal Heirship Claims | OCI Card Must Be Accepted As Valid ID Says Court Citing ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’

Addressing the defendant's reliance on the class of consumers, the Court stated "Indeed in today’s digital age when life has become faster than usual confusion of the nature as aforesaid cannot and should not be lightly ignored."

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant against the order of the learned Single Judge. The judgment stated:

"The conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable in view of the reasons provided in the order impugned and for the additional reasons that we have hereby supplied, we find no reason to interfere with the same. In any case, it is settled law that the appellate Court interferes only when the order appealed against is clearly wrong and not when it is not right. Such is not the case here. The appeal and application are therefore dismissed. No costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Sayantan Basu, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Advocate; Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Advocate; Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate; Ms. Indrani Majumdar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ms. Susrea Mitra, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Bhupendra Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Samriddha Sen, Advocate; Mr. Anwar Hossain, Advocate; Ms. Ojasvi Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Dhanbad Lab Instruments India Private Limited v. METRAVI Instruments Private Limited

Case Number: TEMPAPO – IPD 1 of 2025 with IP – COM 7 of 2024

Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee, Justice Om Narayan Rai

[Read/Download order]