Raymond Ltd. v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (2010)

Quick Summary

Raymond (textiles) sued a pharma company using “Raymond” in its corporate name. The Bombay High Court refused an injunction. Reason: the plaintiff’s registration covered textiles; the defendant sold medicines. With different goods and weak confusion, Section 29 was not met. Domain name use also needs real confusion, not just a shared word.

Issues

• Does using “Raymond” for pharmaceuticals mislead buyers and amount to passing off?
• Can the plaintiff stop use when the registered mark is for textiles and the defendant’s goods are unrelated?

Rules

• Section 29, Trademarks Act, 1999: Infringement turns on use in relation to the same/similar goods or confusion among the public.
• Passing off protects against misrepresentation that causes confusion or damage to goodwill.
• Domain names: infringement arises when the domain is identical or so similar that it causes initial interest confusion to an average user.

Facts (Timeline)

Adoption: Raymond Woollen Mills (now Raymond Ltd.) adopts stylised “Raymond” for textiles.

27 Jun 1983: Registration No. 401766 for “Raymond”—textile piece goods (shirts, suits, saris, dress materials).

Use by Defendant: Pharma company “Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.” uses “Raymond” in its corporate name.

Suit Filed: Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to stop use of “Raymond” in defendant’s name.

Hearing: Bombay High Court examines infringement, passing off, and the scope of Section 29.

Outcome: Injunction refused; disputed name not actionable as infringement on these facts.

Arguments

Judgment

The Bombay High Court dismissed the injunction request. The Trademarks Act does not give automatic protection to a well-known name across all fields. With different goods and no convincing confusion, the defendant’s corporate name was not actionable infringement or passing off. On domains, only identical or confusingly similar names causing initial interest confusion may infringe—every domain is not protected as a mark.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 29 looks at same/similar goods and confusion—different industries weaken the claim.
• Fame alone does not prove likelihood of confusion or passing off.
• Domain name protection requires identity or strong similarity that misleads the average user.

Why It Matters

The case draws a clear line: trademark rights are tied to goods, services, and confusion. Famous marks still need evidence of overlap or likely confusion to win an injunction.

Key Takeaways

1. Different goods + weak confusion = no infringement under Section 29.
2. Passing off needs misrepresentation and damage to goodwill.
3. Well-known status is helpful, not decisive.
4. Domains infringe only with identity/close similarity causing confusion.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Goods–Gap–Guess”

1. Goods: Are the goods the same or close?
2. Gap: Is there a market/industry gap?
3. Guess: Would an average buyer be confused?

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Well-known Mark

A famous mark. Still needs proof of confusion to stop use in distant markets.

Initial Interest Confusion

Early, momentary confusion that attracts customers. Can support infringement if significant.

Passing Off

Common-law action against misrepresentation that harms goodwill.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Daimler Benz v. Hybo Hindustan — famous marks and unrelated goods.
• Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines — passing off principles.
• Satyam Infoway v. Siffynet — domain names as trademarks.