Brief Background
The appellant, The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., filed the appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Tis Hazari Court vacating the ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant, Home Needs, from exporting, manufacturing, marketing, using, selling/soliciting, advertising, etc. and the trade mark/label ‘POLOLIFETIME’, word ‘POLO’ and the mark ‘RALPH LAUREN’ carrying with it a picture of a polo player.
The Appellant/Plaintiff manufactures, distributes, trades, and sells a wide range of clothing, fashion, and lifestyle products, including fashion wear, sportswear, eyewear, luggage, bags, and luxurious home décor, as well as other allied and related goods and services.

The appellant started its business in 1967 and has since been using the mark POLO in conjunction with other words/marks in various styles and artistic formats with and without the device of Polo Player, which had been created and were being created over time, namely POLO, POLO RALPH LAUREN.

The appellant claimed that the defendant was in the business of manufacturing, marketing, soliciting, selling, displaying and trading a variety of household products and kitchen utensils, including but not limited to stainless steel vacuum insulated bottles, single wall bottles, trays, cookware, dinnerware and other allied/related products, under the trademarks ‘POLOLIFETIME’, POLO, Device of Polo Player for its products which are identical and deceptively similar to the marks of the plaintiff.

The Appellant/Plaintiff also contended that adding the word ‘LIFETIME’ to the phrase ‘POLO’ did not make it distinctive and identifiable. It was further said that the defendant’s trademark/label was identical and deceptively like the plaintiff’s trademark/label in every way, including phonetically, graphically, and architecturally, in its basic idea and critical elements.

The Appellant/Plaintiff also contended that the appellant/plaintiff’s mark have been declared as ‘Well-known’ by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2011 in another proceedings namely IN CS OS 1763/2005 THE POLO/LAUREN CO. LP. V. ROHIT S. BAJAJ and thus the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to better protection. 

Overview of the marks of the Parties: 

DEFENDANT’S TRADEMARKS:

		No trademark application filed.
		Application No. 1537943 Class: 21 Mark type: Word Applied by: the respondent/defendant Date of application: 08/03/2007 Status: Abandoned (Opposed by the Appellant/Plaintiff vide opposition No. 745362 dated 02.06.2009 Abandoned vide order dated 07.03.2016)
		Application No. 3836918 Class:21 Mark type: Device Applied by: the respondent/defendant Date of application: 18/05/2018 Status: Pending (Opposed by the Appellant/Plaintiff vide opposition No. 1067206 dated 17/10/2020)
		TM Registration under No. 2105994 Class: 21 Mark type: Device Applied by: the respondent/defendant Date of application: 25/02/2011 Status: Registered (Rectification filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff dated 21.10.2020)
		TM Registration under No. 2105995 Class: 35 Mark type: Device Applied by: the respondent/defendant Date of application: 25/02/2011 Status: Registered (Rectification filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff)
		Application No. 3836919 Class: 21 Mark type: Word Applied by: the respondent/defendant Date of application: 18/05/2018 Status: Pending (Opposed by the Appellant/Plaintiff vide opposition No. 1067207 dated 17/10/2020)
		Polo player/Polo Rider used by the respondents/defendants on brochures which were seized by the Local Commissioner and were annexed along with the LC Report.
TRADEMARKS OF THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
	TM Registration under No. 577995 Class: 14 Mark type: Word Applied by: the appellant/plaintiff Date of application: 27.07.1992 Status: Registered
	TM Registration under No. 357142 Class: 25 Mark type: Ralph Lauren with Device of polo player Applied by: the appellant/plaintiff Date of application: 04.01.1980 Status: Registered
	TM Registration under No. 476409 Class: 03 Mark type: Device Applied by: the appellant/plaintiff Date of application: 06.08.1987 Status: Registered
	TM Registration under No. 420657 Class: 25 Mark type: Device Applied by: the appellant/plaintiff Date of application: 12.04.1984 Status: Registered
	TM Registration under No. 674214 Class: 25 Mark type: Device Applied by: the appellant/plaintiff Date of application: 27.07.1992 Status: Registered
Flask sold by Appellant/Plaintiff Appellant’s flask/bottle

The District Court Decision That Was Challenged 

The Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court), Tees Hazari vide an order dated 14.07.2023 while finally deciding the Plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 1&2, vacated the ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant’s M/s Home Needs from using, selling, displaying, advertising and soliciting its products under the marks Polo Lifetime/ Polo/ POLOLIFETIME and any other marks which may be identical and deceptively similar to the said marks of the Plaintiff I.e. the POLO/LAUREN CO. L.P. granted vide order dated 26.11.2020 by the Ld. Predecessor Judge. 

 The Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court), Tees Hazari while vacating the injunction order dated 26.11.2020 recorded certain observations on the basis of which the ld. Judge came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is not prima-facie entitled for the relief of injunction. The said observations were as follows:

1. In most of the plaintiff’s trademarks besides POLO word, Ralph Lauren is also used along with a Polo Player on Horse whereas in the defendant’s trademark besides Polo, Lifetime is also used hence except for the word POLO there is no similarity between plaintiff’s trademark and defendant’s trademark. 
2. The defendant is in the business of kitchenware products whereas the Plaintiff is in the business of Fashionwear thus, there is very little scope for customers/purchasers of goods to be confused regarding the source of the said products. Also, the plaintiff does not enjoy such a reputation and goodwill in India that it leads the use of the word POLO as an association with the Plaintiff company.
3. The documents reveal that the defendants have started using the trademark POLO since 2005 and obtained registration in 2011 however the plaintiff has not placed on record any document showing sales during the said period.
4. The well-known declaration of the plaintiff’s marks is of no help because the plaintiff has failed to prove that it has become a house-hold name in India, the plaintiff is not in business of multi-fields like TATA and because the defendant started using POLO with suffix LIFETIME much prior to the said well-known declaration.

The Decision by the Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon’ ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja found that the impugned order passed by the Tis Hazari District Court on 14th July 2023 is prima-facie not sustainable. 

The material produced by Sr. Adv. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff was considered, and the Court found that the defendant holds a registration for the trademark “POLOLIFETIME”, a composite word, which was registered on 25th February 2011. and on the other hand, the appellant held the registration for the word ‘POLO’ and the mark ‘RALPH LAUREN’ carrying the picture of a polo player as part of the device registration that was registered in India on 04th January 1980.

The high Court took reference from one of the previous cases, The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. vs. Rohit S. Bajaj & Ors, where it was held that the trademark POLO / RALPH LAUREN / POLO PLAYER DEVICE was liable to be recognized as ‘well-known’ marks as defined under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

The Court found merit in the appeal challenging the order passed by the District Court and put a stay on it till the next hearing, i.e. on 01st February 2024.