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.
Madras High Court said that the applicant has made out a prima-facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction as prayed for in this application
The NCLT ordered the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding existing shareholders and their shareholding.
The Delhi High Court said that the dynamic nature of the digital landscape necessitates that court orders are not static but evolve in tandem with technological advancements and challenges posed by the virtual domain.
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.
Plaintiff’s X mark is derived from their ‘SPARX’ logo and has been used in a standalone form in relation to its footwear products sold under the ‘SPARX’ brand. Plaintiff’s grievance is against the defendants who started using defendants’ X mark, which was deceptively similar, for footwear as well, being identical goods.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
“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’.”
“While one cannot quibble with the broad proposition that a person, while exercising his right to free speech, cannot make reckless utterances, which tantamount to defaming another person, it has certain exception like utterances made during Parliamentary or Judicial proceedings.”
“Since defendants are using different marks on outer packaging of the impugned products and identical roundel devices on the individual cigarette sticks, the Local Commissioner is permitted to open cigarette packs to inspect the logos/devices on the individual cigarette sticks.”
“Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff, and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
“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.”
The defendant was broadcasting on a YouTube Channel, as well as publishing a newspaper in the name of “AAJTAK WATCH”, through the State of Gujarat.
The MANNAT DHABA and MANNAT logo has been registered by the Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited for their Dhabas and eateries, located at Murthal on the Delhi-Chandigarh Highway.
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that the court, in exercising equitable jurisdiction, has the power to remedy wrongful acts, especially when there is a violation of a restraint order.
It is no defence to state that others have also infringing the marks/labels of the Plaintiff as the Defendant cannot seek shelter behind other infringers or potential infringers.
There are unknown entities holding themselves as authorized franchise agents of Wow Momo Private Limited, whereas it has, in fact, no franchisees.
The Plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacturing marketing and selling a wide variety of home appliances, such as ceiling fans, pedestal fans, wall fans, exhaust fans, mixer grinders, smart door locks, and accessories thereof, such as fan remote, fan motor, fan canopy, fan blades, etc. under the trade mark/trade name ATOMBERG since 2012.
The plaintiff’s case is that it uses the brand ‘WOW’ for many products, including supplements, herbal blends, creams, serums, lotions, shampoos, bath & body products, essential oils, etc.
The grievance of RSPL Limited is the use of the mark EXPERT and depiction of the partial clock on the detergent packaging of the defendants as also the use of the word expert and use of the elongated X and DX.