Dongre v. Whirlpool (1996)
```
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court protected the WHIRLPOOL mark in India even when a local party held a registration. The Court said the brand had a transborder reputation—Indian consumers already knew it from global use, sales, and publicity. Using the same mark on washing machines by another trader was likely to deceive and amounted to passing off.
- Reputation can cross borders without continuous local use.
- Passing off can restrain even a registered proprietor.
- Consumer association and goodwill are the key tests.
Issues
- Is a passing off action maintainable against a registered proprietor?
- Did WHIRLPOOL enjoy transborder reputation in India?
- Does such reputation transcend territorial boundaries for legal protection?
Rules
- Transborder Reputation: Goodwill may exist in a country through publicity, ads, trade, and consumer awareness—even without prior local registration.
- Passing Off: Protects goodwill against misrepresentation that causes consumer confusion and damage.
- Registration ≠ shield: A registered proprietor can still be restrained if use is misleading.
Facts (Timeline)
1930s Whirlpool uses the WHIRLPOOL mark abroad on washing machines.
1970s Whirlpool machines are sold in India; the mark gains recognition.
1986 Dongre & Ors. register WHIRLPOOL in India.
1989 Whirlpool sues for passing off, alleging likely deception.
1996 Supreme Court holds that WHIRLPOOL enjoys transborder reputation; Dongre’s use is restrained.
Arguments
Whirlpool (Plaintiff/Respondent)
- Long global use and Indian sales created strong goodwill.
- Consumers linked WHIRLPOOL with Whirlpool Corporation.
- Dongre’s use would mislead buyers and damage reputation.
Dongre & Ors. (Defendant/Appellant)
- Held Indian registration from 1986.
- Claimed entitlement to use on washing machines.
- Disputed Whirlpool’s Indian reputation before 1990.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled for Whirlpool. It found that WHIRLPOOL had a well-known, transborder reputation in India. The Court restrained Dongre’s use because it was likely to cause confusion and pass off its goods as Whirlpool’s, despite Dongre’s registration.
Ratio Decidendi
Goodwill + Likelihood of Confusion = Passing Off. Reputation can be imported through publicity and prior presence. Registration does not authorise deceptive use against a well-known mark with established goodwill among Indian consumers.
Why It Matters
- Protects well-known marks without formalities catching up.
- Warns that registration is not a defence to deceit.
- Guides courts on evidence to prove cross-border goodwill.
Key Takeaways
- Transborder reputation can protect foreign marks in India.
- Passing off focuses on consumer confusion, not just registry records.
- Ads, publicity, past sales, and recognition prove goodwill.
- Courts may injunct even a registered user if use is misleading.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: W-H-I-R-L = Well-known mark, History of use, India aware, Risk of confusion, Legal restraint.
- Spot the goodwill (even from abroad).
- Check if buyers will be confused.
- Restrain deceptive use—even if registered.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of passing off against a registered proprietor. | Transborder reputation; misrepresentation causing confusion is actionable. | WHIRLPOOL was well known; Dongre’s use likely misled consumers. | Injunction granted; registration did not legitimise deceptive use. |
Glossary
- Passing Off
- A tort that stops traders from misrepresenting their goods as those of another with goodwill.
- Transborder Reputation
- Goodwill that crosses national borders through publicity and recognition.
- Well-Known Mark
- A mark widely recognised by the public, deserving broader protection.
Student FAQs
Related Cases
Milmet Oftho v. Allergan
Well-Known MarksDaimler Benz v. Hybo Hindustan
Dilution & ReputationFooter
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now