Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In January and June 2024, the Jindal India Limited discovered that the defendant, Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited, had adopted a similar trademark “HINDJAL HISAR” for galvanized and black steel tubes and pipes.
The Court stated that mere addition of prefix and/or suffix to the impugned mark is inconsequential, thus, it rejected Dubond Products India’s contention that the use of the word “HYDROBUILD” before “LW” in the impugned marks is sufficient to distinguish from the marks of Pidilite Industries.
The Court found it fit to grant a Dynamic+ injunction to keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of the websites.
Termination of Franchise Agreement will revoke respondent authorization to operate the franchise outlet, as well as obligating the respondent to cease the use of petitioner’s trademark.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
Defendant earlier using the mark “Ashirvad by Aliaxis” and adopting “ARTISTRY” only after plaintiff’s “ARTIZE” mark gained repute, prima facie, shows that there is a conscious attempt to ride on plaintiff’s reputation.
After considering the inventory of the infringing products and the conduct of defendants, the Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff for Rs 50 lakh on account of damages and Rs 2 lakh are awarded as costs.
Plaintiff, Wow Momo made out prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff.
The present case is a classic example of typo-squatting, which relies on mistakes or typos made by internet users at the time of entering a website address/URL on the web browser and is bound to create confusion in the minds of the consumers.
It is alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 are perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with plaintiff, resulting in grave financial losses to the public.
The ruling sets a precedent for protecting established brands and upholding the integrity of trademark registration processes. The cancellation of the infringing trademark serves as a deterrent to potential trademark violators, emphasizing the importance of respecting intellectual property rights in commercial activities.
“Defendant’s mark ‘RALLEYZ’ is constituted in such a manner so as to phonetically sit remarkably close, if not together, and squeezed with, plaintiffs’ mark ‘RALEIGH’. It is clearly in the core zone of deceptive similarity, likely to cause confusion and likely to have an association with plaintiff’s mark.”
“The findings of the reports of the Local Commissioners also clearly indicate that defendants are actively involved in the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of counterfeit HERO Oil, thereby infringing upon plaintiffs’ registered HERO marks.”
“The risk of having others bona fide using ‘JINDAL’ as a name for their products, and in the marks used on their products, is a risk that plaintiff consciously took, when it obtained registration of the mark ‘JINDAL’.”
“Irreparable harm will be caused if injunction is not granted, as on online platforms and marketplaces, it is extremely easy for sellers to proliferate the images and continue to dupe customers.”
“Registration of identical trade mark, specifically targeting the same class of goods raises a significant concern for potential confusion and deception among the public.”
“There is an imperative necessity to balance the inventor’s interest and secure public interest and thus ensure that the claim does not travel beyond the invention itself.”
“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 products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices of the products. A consumer who uses such products would be aware of the difference between ‘Lotus Splash’ and plaintiff’s lotus family of products.”
“‘PREMIER’ as used in appellant’s mark is of a completely different font and style and has a small flower device on top of the word. Thus, concluded that there is no deceptive similarity on a bare perusal of the marks.”