Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
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.
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'.
So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological terms, be distinctive.
The Delhi High Court opined that Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd. will not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX ', which was registered in its favour for PVC pipes.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Subway's plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food's mark “SUBERB” in a trade mark infringement case and held that the appearance of Infinity Food's red and white “SUBERB” mark could not be said to be deceptively similar to Subway's device mark, “SUBWAY”.
The Court observed that Khadi & Village Industries Commission holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section