Delhi High Court Grants Injunction to IKEA in Trademark Infringement Suit Against IKey

Case 7: Inter IKEA Systems BV v. IKey Home Studio LLP & Anr.

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3147
Court: Delhi High Court
Date Decided: 18 December 2024
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Background

Inter IKEA Systems BV, the proprietor of the globally recognized “IKEA” trademark, discovered that an Indian entity, IKey Home Studio LLP, was operating under the name “IKEY” and had filed multiple trademark applications in India. IKEA contended that “IKEY” was deceptively similar to its own trademark and that the defendant’s use of the mark, along with a similar logo and tagline, was likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute IKEA’s brand identity.

IKEA filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain IKey from infringing its trademark, passing off, and engaging in unfair trade practices.

Plaintiff’s MARK

Legal Issues

1. Whether IKey’s use of the mark “IKEY” infringes upon IKEA’s registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Whether IKey’s use of a similar logo and branding elements constitutes passing off and unfair trade practices.
3. Whether IKEA is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the suit.

Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff (Inter IKEA Systems BV):

• Asserted that “IKEA” is a well-known trademark with significant goodwill and reputation worldwide, including in India.
• Claimed that IKey’s use of “IKEY,” along with similar branding elements, is likely to cause confusion among consumers and amounts to trademark infringement and passing off.
• Argued that the adoption of the “IKEY” mark by the defendant was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on IKEA’s established brand identity.

Defendants (Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.):

• At the time of the ex-parte hearing, the defendants had not filed a response.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Inter IKEA Systems BV, restraining IKey Home Studio LLP and others from:

• Using the mark “IKEY,”“IKEY Home Studio,” or any other mark deceptively similar to “IKEA” in any manner, including on products, packaging, promotional materials, or online platforms.
• Using a logo or branding elements that are deceptively similar to IKEA’s registered trademarks and associated branding elements.

The court held that IKEA had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction and that the balance of convenience favored IKEA. It also noted that IKEA would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

• The use of a mark that is deceptively similar to a well-known registered trademark constitutes infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
• The adoption of similar branding elements can lead to consumer confusion and amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices.
• In cases where the plaintiff demonstrates a strong prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable harm, courts may grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(b), 29(4)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2

Bibliography

• Inter IKEA Systems BV v. IKey Home Studio LLP & Anr. [2024] SCC OnLine Del 3147
• ‘Delhi High Court grants injunction in favor of IKEA in trademark infringement case against IKEY’ (SCC Online, 26 December 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/12/26/delhi-high-court-ikea-trademark-infringement-injunction-legal-news/
• ‘Delhi High Court Grants Relief To IKEA In Trademark Suit Against Indian Firm IKEY’ (Bar & Bench, 24 December 2024) https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-grants-relief-ikea-trademark-suit-indian-firm-ikey