Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.”
The word ‘DISH’ is a common English word which denotes Dish Antenna and cannot be described as a prominent or an essential feature of such nature so as to allow the plaintiff a monopoly over its use. The two products at dispute were “DD Free Dish” by Prasar Bharti (Doordarshan) and “Dish TV” by Dish TV India Limited.
Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff, PPL India, established a compelling case of copyright infringement against Geetanjali Salon, the defendants, with a clear imbalance of convenience favoring the plaintiff’s protection of intellectual property, an interim injunction is granted to halt the defendants’ unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.
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 terminus ad quem, by which date the plaintiff has to prove the acquisition of the requisite goodwill and reputation for a plea of passing off to succeed, is the date of commencement, by the defendant, of the rival mark.”
“Forbearance from granting such relief would enable the defendants to continue exploiting the plaintiff’s copyright, which would result in irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.”
“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'.”