Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“It is clear that the impugned mark has been adopted by Respondent 1 dishonestly to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner under the RAPIDO marks and to associate itself with the petitioner.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The comparison of images of both names makes it abundantly clear that defendant 1 has copied the most distinctive part of the plaintiff’s mark, which is ‘Evergreen’. In the case of the defendant 1, the word ‘Evergreen’ has the prefix “JV” and the suffix “Sweets and Treats”, whereas in the plaintiff’s case, the word ‘Evergreen’ is followed by the word “Sweet House”.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Even after the termination of their contractual relationship and the explicit withdrawal of rights to use the plaintiff’s trademarks and logos, defendants have unauthorisedly continued use of their deceptively similar marks.”