Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court observed that the composite mark CHINA BISTRO cannot be said to be lacking in distinctiveness, when seen as a whole, in the absence of any evidence or material to that effect led by Wow Momo Foods Limited.
The main grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant 2 has by adopting a trade dress for its BERKINS brand range of shoes which is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s RS-X range of shoes, sought to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.
“The comparison of the defendant’s and the plaintiffs’ marks will show that the defendant has not merely copied one mark or packaging but has deliberately adopted a series of marks, in packaging with almost identical colour combinations.”
Calcutta High Court restrained TMC respondents from carrying out a pre-planned “gherao” of the residences of the leaders of a particular political party.
The term “BHAIYAJI” is a word of common use in certain states of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and which literally translates into the word “brother” and is therefore, of a non-distinctive character.
“The term ‘ZENITH’' even being a common English expression cannot be regarded as ‘publici juris’ in the context of services relating to education in dance.”
“The rights ventilated in the plaint, that is, the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in Sushant Singh Rajput, were not heritable. They died with his death. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.”
The two competing marks “ISTAMET” and “INDAMET” are clearly structurally and phonetically similar, and when seen from the eyes of consumer of average intelligence having imperfect recollection, there are high chances of confusion and deception. Confusion surrounding the mode of administration of a drug can lead to misuse and potential health risks.
The success of any student is the result of his hard labour and the infinite efforts he puts into the goal he has set to achieve. Therefore, dragging a child in a litigation driven by commercial interest between two competing coaching institutions claiming credit for the success of a child is an insult to his endless efforts and cannot be permitted.
The landlord was offered the possession of the suit property which was refused by him on the pretext of damage to the suit property, whereas no evidence has been adduced by him about damage to the suit property except his bald statements.
The use of ‘NEW BALANCE IMMIGRATION’ as a part of its trade name by New Balance Immigration (P) Ltd. (defendant) is likely to deceive unwary consumers of their association with New Balance Athletics Inc (plaintiff).
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in May 2023
The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and ‘publici juris’ in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a period, or vice versa.
The founder of the defendant institutions was not only aware of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in the USA but drew inspiration from the founder of ‘Mayo Clinic’, USA. Thus, the defendants have dishonestly adopted the ‘MAYO’ mark of the plaintiff as they are fully aware of the prior existence and use of the same by the plaintiff.
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that the parties had the chance to appeal against the said order of lower court, yet they approached the High Court through Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Plaintiff is aggrieved by a video circulating on Facebook pages containing disparaging remarks against the product of the Plaintiff i.e., edible oil bearing the registered trademark “MAHAKOSH”.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in April 2023