Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Defendant is free to use the two proposed marks, i.e., 
and 
, so long as the said marks are used in a manner where the words ‘MY’ or ‘मेरी’ are of the same font, colour and size as the word ‘RAASHEE’.”
“The differences showed that extraordinary effort has been put by defendant in identifying differences and the broad similarities are so obvious at the first look that the differences are nudged into oblivion.”
“Section 47 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 serves to protect the integrity of the trade mark register by ensuring that registered marks that are not actively used in commerce are removed.”
“Refusal of injunction will be contrary to public interest, as there will be likelihood of confusion, in the public, between the products of defendants and plaintiffs because of similarity of the marks used by them.”
“The terminus ad quem, by which date the plaintiff has to prove the acquisition of the requisite goodwill and reputation for a plea of passing off to succeed, is the date of commencement, by the defendant, of the rival mark.”
“Commonly used words, or a non-distinctive combination of commonly used words, cannot be monopolised by any one person, so as to disentitle the rest of the world to the use thereof.”
“Use of trade marks as keywords cannot, by any stretch, be construed as applying the registered trade mark to any material intended to be used for labelling or packing goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services.”
“The continued use of the impugned mark will affect the purity of the registered trade mark as the same is likely to cause deception and confusion, in terms of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
“Spa services have a requirement for high quality, best hygiene, safety/security of customers and if unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark ‘ANGSANA’ is permitted to be used, the same will result in severe erosion of its goodwill.”
“Defendants’ act of adopting mark which is structurally and visually nearly identical to that of plaintiff along with a trade dress which is also imitative of that of plaintiff, indicates that defendants have strained every nerve to come as close to plaintiff as possible.”
“The aspect of likelihood of confusion has to be examined from the perspective of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”
“Copying of so many marks, labels, packaging, and containers is a deliberate act on defendants’ behalf to gain monetarily by selling counterfeit products.”
“Even if two device marks are visually completely dissimilar, and if their textual components are deceptively similar to each other, then visual dissimilarities between marks, owing to “added matter”, pale into insignificance, where infringement is concerned.”
“The name, the goods and the class of customers is identical. The Plaintiff was a long prior user of the mark and name ’Emerald’ for valves and the Defendant’s adoption is recent.”
The marks have to be compared as a whole mark, thus compared, there is no phonetic similarity between NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI.
“The infringement conducted by defendant by imitating plaintiff’s mark ‘WOODLAND’ and ‘tree device 
’ has been deliberate and calculated.”
“Defendants are directed to ensure that reference to the mark ‘BACHPAN’, either as a word mark or as a device mark, is removed from all physical and virtual sites on which the mark might be reflected in association with defendants.”
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“A party can only seek permission from a Court to reserve its rights to urge a challenge at a later point of time. For that, such rights must be in existence in praesenti, when the plea is made, or should be foreseeable as arising in the future.”
“The confusion is exacerbated by the look and feel of the defendants’ website which has, obviously, deliberately and intentionally, been made to copy the plaintiffs’ website.”