“Even if two device marks are visually completely dissimilar, and if their textual components are deceptively similar to each other, then visual dissimilarities between marks, owing to “added matter”, pale into insignificance, where infringement is concerned.”
“The name, the goods and the class of customers is identical. The Plaintiff was a long prior user of the mark and name ’Emerald’ for valves and the Defendant’s adoption is recent.”
“Defendants are directed to ensure that reference to the mark ‘BACHPAN’, either as a word mark or as a device mark, is removed from all physical and virtual sites on which the mark might be reflected in association with defendants.”
Clause 2.6 of the MOU signed between the parties clearly stipulates that upon termination/determination of this agreement the developer/respondent shall have no right to use any brand/mark associated with the consultants/petitioners, and/or any brand/mark identical or deceptively similar thereto, in relation to Project, expansion or part thereof.
“There is no injunction on Mohalla Tech (P) Ltd. using the cover versions, remixes or user generated content.”
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“In view of pictorial depiction of stag, the “STAG” part of plaintiff’s mark has necessarily to be held to be its essential and dominating feature and the use, by defendant, of word STAG along with pictorial depiction of stag, clearly indicates imitation, by defendant, of essential features of plaintiff’s mark.”
“That defendants have chosen to imitate the manner in which plaintiff prints its logo is itself testimony to the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff, in the perception of defendant itself.”
“There is every likelihood of defendant’s cloud kitchen services being perceived as another extension of plaintiff’s services owing to the nature of the ‘SOCIAL’ series of marks used by plaintiff.”
“Listings play a crucial role in online marketing and sales. Copying of listings also indicates that defendant is trying to pass off its products as that of plaintiff, in view of the point-of-sale confusion that becomes clearly possible.”
“The mark, the name, and the overall look and feel of the website gave a clear impression that defendants are making a deliberate attempt to imitate and copy plaintiffs name/mark ‘NYKAA’ only to gain monetarily by such deception.”
“Viewed from the perspective of initial impression conveyed by defendant’s mark on the mind of consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, if a court crosses such consumer’s mind as to whether market is not the same as, or associated with, the mark of plaintiff, which is seen earlier in point of time, “likelihood of confusion” and “likelihood of association”, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 necessarily exists.”
“While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating any intellectual property rights.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
“There can be no copyright claimed in the Scriptures. However, any adaptations of the said work including providing explanation, summary, meaning, exegesis/interpretation or creating any audio-visual works being transformative works, will be entitled to copyright protection.”
“The plaintiff's mark and the defendants' mark are composite trade marks, which imply that they are a combination of different elements, and their registration willd not grant an exclusive right in the word ‘d mart'.”
“The defendant is selling honeycomb panels to the Ministry of Defence since 2012 and containers of the defendant cannot be sold without the panel, considering the purpose for which containers are stated to be needed, that too by the Ministry of Defence.”
“There is nothing illegal in seeking out internet users as targets for advertisements that they may find relevant. In brick-and-mortar world, there will be no question of infringement if customers looking for a product are also offered products of rival competitors”.
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.