Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
“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 plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilizing content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff.
The unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are affiliated with plaintiff.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The plaintiff averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the registered trade marks has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
“It is clear that the impugned mark has been adopted by Respondent 1 dishonestly to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner under the RAPIDO marks and to associate itself with the petitioner.”
“Petitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.”
Delhi High Court held that the defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark and deceived unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting Louis Vuitton’s registered marks.
The infringers were restrained from using Skechers’ trade mark and artistic works or any other trade mark or artistic work identical or similar to Skechers, till the next date of hearing.
Usage of trade mark ‘BURJNOIDA’ was allowed because the residential project had been in construction for the last ten years.
“The Court said the Family Court judge was correct in holding that divorce petition could not be rejected merely because a part of the cause of action was not viable in law if the Court otherwise had jurisdiction to entertain the action, and therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was not sustainable.”
The timing, duration, and whether oversight of a child counsellor is required during visitation by a non-custodial parent, is a call that the Court has to take bearing in mind, the best interest of the child.