Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“In the case of pharmaceutical, cosmetics, health and related wellness products a higher standard would be required to be laid down in view of the damage that such products can cause to the consumers.”
“This Court is not inclined to stay the impugned trade mark registration for the mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction of this Court would have to be considered first.”
“Viewed from the perspective of initial impression conveyed by defendant’s mark on the mind of consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, if a court crosses such consumer’s mind as to whether market is not the same as, or associated with, the mark of plaintiff, which is seen earlier in point of time, “likelihood of confusion” and “likelihood of association”, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 necessarily exists.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
“Where the marks in question pertain to food items, or eateries where food items are dispensed and served, a somewhat higher degree of care and caution is expected to be observed.”
“Insofar as the use of the name/mark ‘GLAF’ or any other alternate name/mark is concerned, the parties are referred to mediation, so that they can agree upon an alternate name that Gurugram Land and Finance (P) Ltd. can use.”
“There are repeated cases wherein litigants have raised allegations against Trade Marks Agents and Patent Agents and apart from reprimand from courts, there are no other consequences that visit them.”
“The plaintiffs have a family of marks all of which use the “TAK” suffix; therefore, the “TAK” suffix has become a source identifier of the marks of the plaintiffs and is, thus, the dominant part of the mark.”
“The letters and the scratch cards, etc., are so convincing that any customer or recipient will be unable to distinguish between the plaintiffs’ communications and those of the said entity or person.”
“The mere insertion of 
figure above the word 
in the defendant’s mark does not mitigate the fact of infringement or of the defendant consciously seeking to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.”
“The plaintiff's mark 
and the defendants' mark 
are composite trade marks, which imply that they are a combination of different elements, and their registration willd not grant an exclusive right in the word ‘d mart'.”
“Accuracy and reliability of an Artificial Intelligence (‘AI') generated data is still in the grey area. At best the tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.”
“there is no requirement, in law, of a mark having to be registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the fact of non-registration is, at best, an extremely weak ground on which user of the mark can be doubted.”
“Due to the fact that the defendant has not contested the matter, but compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit, by not agreeing to give up the infringing mark, despite being put to notice, the plaintiff is entitled to receive actual costs.”
“The comparison of the defendant’s and the plaintiffs’ marks will show that the defendant has not merely copied one mark or packaging but has deliberately adopted a series of marks, in packaging with almost identical colour combinations.”
“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
The defendant, Dhanpreet Singh Trading was restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trade marks or copyrights in respect of the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME'.
“It is intriguing as to why a reputed company such as the defendant company, Wipro Enterprises would launch its product, also pertaining to female reproductive hygiene, almost 22 years later, using the identical trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Co.”
The details of the Grievance Officers in terms of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including the physical and email address shall be published openly for public access on LinkedIn’s website.