Ceramica Bathrooms, two others agree not to use Tokyo Cement’s trademarks

The intellectual property action filed by Tokyo Cement Company (Lanka) Plc against Ceramica Bathrooms Ltd, Abdul Salam Abdul Malik and Safreena Salahudeen over unfair competition and infringement of trademarks was settled in the Commercial High Court on 17 January. 

When the matter was called before Judge Sampath Wijerathne, Malik and Salahudeen, who run a partnership business ‘Ceramica Bathrooms’, offered an undertaking not to use the plaintiff’s intellectual property in the form of the plaintiffs ‘Tokyo’ Trademarks, upon which judgment and decree was entered in favour of Tokyo Cement. 

Malik and Salahudeen, on their behalf and also on the behalf of Ceramica Bathrooms Ltd, undertook to refrain from using the plaintiff’s ‘Tokyo Superbond’ and ‘Tokyo Super’ trademarks along with the distinctive shape in the manner depicted in the complaint of the plaintiff.

This settlement came in the backdrop of the plaintiff initiating action before the Commercial High Court and where the judge, having considered the matters placed before Court, proceeded to issue an enjoining order ex parte restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s trademarks ‘Tokyo Superbond’ and ‘Tokyo Super’, with the distinctive shape as depicted in the defendant’s tile adhesive product’s getup or in any misleadingly similar manner so as to nearly resemble the plaintiff’s trademarks ‘Tokyo Super’ with the distinctive shape. Thereafter, when the second and third defendants appeared in Court, they considered giving the undertaking in the aforesaid manner.

The plaintiff Tokyo Cement Company (Lanka) Plc is one of Sri Lanka’s leading cement manufacturers, a public listed company and the parent company of the Tokyo Cement Group which consists of Tokyo Super Cement Lanka Ltd, Tokyo Cement Power Lanka Ltd, Tokyo Super Aggregate Ltd, Tokyo Eastern Cement Company Ltd. and Tokyo Supermix Ltd.

The plaintiff had set out in its complaint that several products of the plaintiff carrying the word ‘Tokyo’ had been registered as trademarks. Moreover, most of the plaintiff’s marks contain a distinct shape that is readily identifiable and distinctively associated exclusively with the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that its ‘Tokyo’ trademarks can be construed as well-known marks in terms of the law. 

The case was filed by the plaintiff on the basis that it was made aware of a tile adhesive product being sold by the defendants under the name and style of ‘Orient Superbond Tile Adhesive’. The plaintiff in the complaint set out that this product of the defendant possesses similar packaging to that used by the plaintiff for its tile adhesive product ‘Tokyo Superbond Tile Adhesive – Standard Set’, which is a registered trademark of the plaintiff and furthermore, incorporates a distinct shape similar to that of the plaintiff in a manner to confuse and mislead the general public. 

The complaint was represented in Court by Dr. Harsha Cabral, President’s Counsel with Nishan Premathiratne, Migara Cabral and Krishan Fernandopulle appearing on the instructions of Julius and Creasy. The second and third defendants were represented in Court by Faris and Associates.