Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and deceive customers to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
Acknowledging the principle of territoriality, prior use in international jurisdictions, the registration obtained for the subject mark ‘WR’ in such territorial jurisdictions and other relevant materials produced by Yamaha, the Court directed fresh review of the application.
The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit a premise, as petitioner the petitioner apprehended that the respondent was likely to remove all evidence to deny its involvement in infringing activities.
“The registration of the impugned domain names by Defendant 1 would be prejudicial to public interest as the Defendant 1 is seeking to monopolize the mark, which was announced by the Insurance Regulator IRDAI for a specific purpose in public interest.”
“The fact that IndiaMART provides an option for a seller to choose the brand of its products specifically describing its goods cannot, prima facie, be held to be a ground to hold that it aids and abets the infringer in displaying the counterfeit products of a particular brand.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
“The fact that the customer may on a closer examination of products and enquiries find that the impugned trade marks are not associated with the appellant’s trade marks would not take away from the fact that the impugned marks bear a similarity with the appellants trade mark, which led to the confusion.”
“Mere use of a mark, even if continued over a period, is not by itself sufficient to establish enforceable rights under trade mark law. It must be shown that the mark, through its use in trade, has acquired a distinct association in the minds of the relevant consumer base with the claimant’s goods.”
The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilizing content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff.
Around December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO that the defendant commenced use of the name METBRANDS and until that time, the defendant was operating and offering goods and services under the name ‘METRENDS’.
The Court stated that Defendants 1,8, 9 and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
Upon careful comparison of the plaintiff’s trade dress and that of the defendants, it became apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants’ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff’s trade dress.
The Court held that Moonshine had demonstrated a prima facie case for a grant of injunction, the refusal of which would cause an irreparable loss to it.
The plaintiff averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the registered trade marks has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
Considering the widespread promotional and advertisement activities undertaken by the plaintiff, it is apparent that the trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
The plaintiffs submitted that the confusingly similar trade mark in the field of pharmaceuticals, create greater injury as compared to products and services in other fields.
There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is openly using the subject device mark in the context of its goods in the public domain and the Registrar completely ignored these documents while passing the impugned order.
Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had registered its well-known trade mark “WIPRO” and its formative trade marks in various classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.