Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trade mark cannot be said to be an honest adoption as though having a registered trade mark, the defendant deviated from the mark and adopted a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark.”
“Any confusion between the edible products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, the Court must adopt more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and deceive customers to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
“Refusal to grant interim injunction at this stage would cause irreparable harm to Inox, as Cryogas—having no rights to the intellectual property—would be able to exploit Inox goodwill without any legal deterrent.”
Khaitan & Co represented Inox India before the Baroda District Court in securing interim injunctive relief against Cryogas Equipment
“The registration of the impugned domain names by Defendant 1 would be prejudicial to public interest as the Defendant 1 is seeking to monopolize the mark, which was announced by the Insurance Regulator IRDAI for a specific purpose in public interest.”
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing the suit while considering an application for an injunction.
The defendant’s contention that the expression “1K PUR” is common to trade or publici juris, was rejected and the Court opined that a party asserting that a word/expression has become common to trade must satisfy the test of extensive, actual, and continuous use of such an expression in the market.
The adoption of plaintiffs’ trade marks and plaintiffs’ artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by defendants is dishonest.
Madras High Court also directed the Media house to remove and delete the defamatory article published against the former army personnel.
If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
“An average consumer with an imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived into thinking that the plaintiff has opened a new ‘SOCIAL’ outlet in Vadodara, Gujarat where the defendant is operating its outlet.”
“It is a series which appears to be more in the genre of comedy, and merely describes the main character as a topper in Chartered Accountancy Examination. It is neither intended nor can be perceived to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy.”
Since the rival trade marks were visually and phonetically identical, it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists.
The Delhi High Court said that while trade mark registration offers statutory benefits, it does not obliterate prior common law rights established through actual use and accrued goodwill in the market.
The Court opined that had the plaintiff disclosed the facts, about the knowledge of the date of usage of the logo, then the ad interim relief without notice would not have been granted to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the Court opined that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts.
The Court dismissed an application for granting interim injunction as similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially because it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available.
The Court was satisfied that plaintiff 1 — Domino’s IP Holder LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, as they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction was not granted.
“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.”