Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
To render an impression of authenticity, Defendant 1 is also circulating a forged Guarantee Agreement that mentions plaintiffs’ trade marks, trade name, registered address, Corporate Identity Number, and signatures of their founder.
Plaintiff, Wow Momo made out prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff.
It is alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 are perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with plaintiff, resulting in grave financial losses to the public.
“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 findings of the reports of the Local Commissioners also clearly indicate that defendants are actively involved in the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of counterfeit HERO Oil, thereby infringing upon plaintiffs’ registered HERO marks.”
“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’.”
“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.”
“The investigation report, prima facie, reveals that the mark ‘AL-WALIMAH’ is never used by Respondent 1 and no rice product under the impugned mark is found in the market survey of relevant shops, nor did any shopkeeper expressed any knowledge in that regard.”
“Defendant is free to use the two proposed marks, i.e., 
and 
, so long as the said marks are used in a manner where the words ‘MY’ or ‘मेरी’ are of the same font, colour and size as the word ‘RAASHEE’.”
“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 users are being re-directed to website www.leadleacoin.com, an alleged bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange, which is not linked with plaintiff. It appears to be an illegitimate website, intended to be used as ploy to induce users to invest substantial sums of money, being drawn using “SEQUOIA” mark.”
“‘PREMIER’ as used in appellant’s mark is of a completely different font and style and has a small flower device on top of the word. Thus, concluded that there is no deceptive similarity on a bare perusal of the marks.”
“Refusal of injunction will be contrary to public interest, as there will be likelihood of confusion, in the public, between the products of defendants and plaintiffs because of similarity of the marks used by them.”
“Defendants are based out of India and are taking shelter under the technological tools to stay away from the Court, while continuing to operate the platform.”
“Spa services have a requirement for high quality, best hygiene, safety/security of customers and if unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark ‘ANGSANA’ is permitted to be used, the same will result in severe erosion of its goodwill.”
“Defendants’ act of adopting mark which is structurally and visually nearly identical to that of plaintiff along with a trade dress which is also imitative of that of plaintiff, indicates that defendants have strained every nerve to come as close to plaintiff as possible.”
“Defendants are free to use trade mark “BURGER EMPEROR”/and other “BURGER EMPEROR”/ formative marks and logo/device 
.”
“The aspect of likelihood of confusion has to be examined from the perspective of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”
“Copying of so many marks, labels, packaging, and containers is a deliberate act on defendants’ behalf to gain monetarily by selling counterfeit products.”
“Even if two device marks are visually completely dissimilar, and if their textual components are deceptively similar to each other, then visual dissimilarities between marks, owing to “added matter”, pale into insignificance, where infringement is concerned.”