Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The grievance of Patanjali Ayurved is that a video has been uploaded by respondent on the internet platforms owned by Meta Inc. having an advertisement of mens undergarments, wherein Patanjali’s trademark along with pictures of its brand ambassadors and directors are shown used unauthorizedly.
“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”
Madras High Court said that the apprehension of Sangeetha Hotels that the public would be misled into believing that the respondent is nothing but old wine in a new bottle stands prima facie proved.
“The Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against an interim order ought not to disturb the prima facie findings, but it can substitute its own discretion when it is found that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction in ignorance of settled principles of law.”
“District Court, Karnal where the first petition was filed pertaining to the Agreement in question alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the Licence Agreement. No other Court can entertain any subsequent application.
Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to re-consider and decide the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the parties
“Balance of convenience would, clearly not justify bringing the use, by the defendants, of the PANTOPACID mark to a complete halt, at this late stage.”
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.
Delhi High Court observed that the composite mark CHINA BISTRO cannot be said to be lacking in distinctiveness, when seen as a whole, in the absence of any evidence or material to that effect led by Wow Momo Foods Limited.
The term “BHAIYAJI” is a word of common use in certain states of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and which literally translates into the word “brother” and is therefore, of a non-distinctive character.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and ‘publici juris’ in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a period, or vice versa.
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.
Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the seven parameters laid in Narendra Hirawat & Co. v. Sholay Media Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1878 for granting interim injunction including the extent of damages, protection of plaintiff’s interest, balance of convenience or inconvenience, etc.
Under section 3(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Raughan-E-Badam Shireen/ Badani Shireen is mentioned as Unani Medicine in the authoritative book of First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Delhi High Court observed that the defendant has used the infringing mark ‘BETNOL’, which is identical to the plaintiff’s mark ‘BETNESOL’ with the intent to springboard its business by drawing association with the plaintiff and its trademark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the mark of the plaintiff.
Transliteration is the conversion of a text from one script or alphabet to another, as opposed to translation from one language to another. Shorter Oxford Dictionary 5th Edition defines ‘transliteration' as a noun to mean rendering of letters or characters of one alphabet in those of another.
The Plaintiff is aggrieved by a video circulating on Facebook pages containing disparaging remarks against the product of the Plaintiff i.e., edible oil bearing the registered trademark “MAHAKOSH”.
Delhi High Court observed that customers are being misled by the defendants and the entire effort is deliberate and dishonest amounting to dilution of the reputation and goodwill of the trademark/logo of the plaintiffs.
In Lulu v. Coolulu trademark dispute, the Karnataka High Court chided the competent authority for not considering the nuances of the dispute properly, which meant that the impugned order did not show even a semblence of application of mind.