Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Mere reliance on sales figures, promotional expenditure, or broad assertions of popularity, without cogent documentary substantiation connecting such use exclusively to the mark “ONE FOR ALL”, is insufficient.”
In the last week of March 2025, the plaintiff came across the listing of defendants’ products on e-commerce platforms such as Meesho and TradeRaise for identical products i.e., for cleaners and disinfectants, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “MAXKITEEN” marks.
Defendant 1 is unknown person/persons, who have fraudulently engaged with different business entities to commit fraud, impersonation and are misleading the general public into believing that they are acting on behalf of the plaintiff.
In April 2022, while conducting a market survey, the plaintiff came across the defendant’s listing on the online trade directory of www.tradeindia.com selling butyl tubes of two-wheeler and four-wheeler vehicles under the infringing marks.
The unauthorized use of the “LIV” element in a manner that does not materially differentiate the defendants’ mark from the plaintiffs’ well-established “Liv.52” mark amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights.
The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.
“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”
The similarity between the conflicting marks ‘IKEA’ and ‘IKEY’ is such that it cannot be mere co-incidence and a case of ignorance.
It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts.
Dream 11 is a fantasy sport league is an online multi-player game where participants draft virtual teams of real players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based on the performance of the players in actual games.
The present suit seeks a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition arising from the sale of footwear featuring marks that are nearly identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established N Device and 550 marks.
Yahoo Inc.’s investigation revealed that the defendant was producing a mouth freshener under the name “YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener.” that closely resembled the established trademark “YAHOO!”, leading to allegations of trademark infringement and passing off.
The impugned mark, “DREAM11”, is clearly used as the domain name of the defendant’s website and its logo. The description of the defendant’s platform as contained on its website reveals that its services are identical to those of Sporta Technologies.