Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement


A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP, 2025:BHC-OS:3609, reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street".

Key points of analysis:

  • Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence.
  • Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered trademark "STREAX," creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were trying to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff by using the impugned trademark.
  • Defenses: The defendants argued that the word "STREAK" is descriptive, referring to coloured strands of hair, and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over it.
  • Plaintiff's Rebuttal: The plaintiff countered that "STREAK" has multiple meanings and is not solely descriptive of hair products. They also emphasized that the defendants use their trademark "STREAK Street" not in a descriptive sense as they applied for its registration. The plaintiff argued that the defendants are prevented from claiming the plaintiff's trademark is weak because they themselves applied for registration of a similar mark.
  • Court's Reasoning: The court recognized the plaintiff's established proprietary rights in the registered trademark "STREAX" due to its long-standing use, substantial sales, and advertising investments. The court rejected the defendant's argument that "STREAK" is merely descriptive, stating that it has other meanings. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is strongly asserting its statutory rights, unlike cases where the plaintiff conceded that the mark was not inherently distinctive.

Arguments and Findings

  • The court found that the leading, essential, and central feature of the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," is deceptively similar to the registered trademark "STREAX".
  • The court criticized the defendants for "blowing hot and cold" by challenging the plaintiff's trademark while seeking registration of their own mark containing the word "STREAK".
  • The court granted the interim application and restrained the defendants from using the mark "STREAK Street" or any mark deceptively similar to "STREAX".

Defendant's Claim of Descriptive Use

  • The defendant's primary defense was that "STREAK" is a descriptive term for colored hair strands and, therefore, cannot be exclusively claimed by the plaintiff.
  • The court rejected this argument, noting that "STREAK" has various meanings and the defendants failed to prove its use as a trademark by other entities in the same trade channels.

Significance of Trademark Registrations

  • The plaintiff's 44 trademark registrations for "STREAX" and its variants since 2002 were crucial in establishing proprietary rights and brand protection.
  • These registrations demonstrated the company's investment in and protection of the "STREAX" brand.

Prosecution History Estoppel

  • The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed the initial examination report from the Trade Marks Registry, which questioned the distinctiveness of "STREAX".
  • They contended that the plaintiff's likely response to that report (claiming "STREAX" is dissimilar to "STREAK") would contradict their current infringement claim.
  • The court found no evidence of the plaintiff's response to the examination report and emphasized that the Trademark Registry ultimately granted registration for "STREAX".

Interim Reliefs

  • The court granted an injunction against the defendants, preventing them from using the mark "STREAK Street" or any deceptively similar mark, thus protecting the plaintiff's trademark rights.

Broader Implications

  • The court's decision underscores the importance of trademark registration in infringement cases and the protection afforded to registered trademarks with established goodwill.
  • The case highlights the principle that a party cannot simultaneously argue a trademark is descriptive while seeking registration for a similar mark.
  • The ruling reinforces the court's role in preventing deceptive similarity and passing off to protect consumers and trademark owners.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more

Unconstitutional Arrest: Vihan Kumar's Freedom Restored, Article 22(1) Violated, Police Fail to Communicate Grounds, Handcuffing in Hospital Condemned

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA. Citation: 2025 INSC 162 (Reportable) Case Overview The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Vihan Kumar against the State of Haryana, regarding his arrest in connection with FIR No. 121/2023 . The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The court's ruling focused primarily on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellant, deeming the arrest illegal. Factual Background Vihan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024 , in relation to an FIR concerning offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The appellant claimed his arrest occurred around 10:30 am, while the State claimed it was at 6:00 pm. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024 , at 3:30 pm. Aft...
Read more