AREA: Design
FACTS:
Faber Castell (the Plaintiff) alleged that Cello (the Defendant) had infringed the three-sided crayon design as well as was attempting to pass off them as being that of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff based its contentions on the distinctiveness of its crayons, because, it had a novel and unique shape, i.e. trigonal, the packed product including 24 crayons. Moreover, the twin series of paralleled lines the of dots on each stem of the three sides can be seen on the crayons. Secondly, they stated that their crayons were unique in their presentation, wherein two sunken plates are facing each other inside a bigger outer ampule. The five major rudiments of the Plaintiff’s pastel crayons accordingly were; triangularly shaped Sharpen-able, Erasable, No slip-up grasp, and Preparation/Presentation in the tray. The Plaintiff mentioned having no interest in claiming monopoly over the aforementioned specialty but stated that the amalgamation of these aspects in a specific manner as well as presentation is exceptional to them and nobody else. They further stated that the summative of the above results in complete arbitrariness and additionally contended that Cello’s crayon pastels conveyed a profane resemblance to Faber Castell’s crayon pastels. Cello in its turn attributed Faber Castell with dominance and subjugation, which according to the former was quantifiable; because the key aspects of Faber Castell’s crayon pastels were functional elements virtuously and not of arbitrary nature.
ISSUES:
Whether Cello ltd.’s products are similar to Faber Castle so that it confuses common people?
Whether Cello's product is passing off as Faber-Castell's product?
ANALYSIS:
In this context, the court examined whether the key features of FC’s crayons were capricious or not. It noted that the twin series of parallel lines of dots as well as the name and logo of FC embossed on the crayons are artistic and not functional elements.
If at all the twin parallel lines were functional, there was no reason why Cello had chosen to not extend them across the entire length of the shanks and had instead chosen to stop at the exact length FC had stopped.
On comparing the products of both parties, it was observed that the only distinction between the two was that FC’s name and logo were missing on one of the shanks of Cello’s crayons. All the other features of Cello’s crayons were exactly that of FC’s.
Cello has been unsuccessful in showing functional uses for the key elements of FC’s crayons, so it could not be argued that this was the only possible design it could have employed.
Justice Patel held that from the view p, point of the target audience of a child or a harried parent, there was no distinction between the two products.
The court examined the case of Jones v. Hallworth, Whirlpool and Pikpen tests. To adopt one feature may be happenstance; two might be coincidence but to replicate them all certainly deserves an injunction.
JUDGMENT:
The court finds that there is no distinction between the two rival products and grants an injunction in favor of Faber-Castell. The court orders that Cello be restrained from using the impugned trade dress and packaging that is deceptively similar to Faber-Castell's. The court rejects Cello's application for a stay of the order. Thus, the Court granted an injunction in favor of FC, noting that the longer Cello’s crayons remained in the market, the greater the continuing loss to FC would be.
Comments