Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
“The name, the goods and the class of customers is identical. The Plaintiff was a long prior user of the mark and name ’Emerald’ for valves and the Defendant’s adoption is recent.”
“The infringement conducted by defendant by imitating plaintiff’s mark ‘WOODLAND’ and ‘tree device 
’ has been deliberate and calculated.”
“Defendants are directed to ensure that reference to the mark ‘BACHPAN’, either as a word mark or as a device mark, is removed from all physical and virtual sites on which the mark might be reflected in association with defendants.”
“In view of pictorial depiction of stag, the “STAG” part of plaintiff’s mark has necessarily to be held to be its essential and dominating feature and the use, by defendant, of word STAG along with pictorial depiction of stag, clearly indicates imitation, by defendant, of essential features of plaintiff’s mark.”
“There is every likelihood of defendant’s cloud kitchen services being perceived as another extension of plaintiff’s services owing to the nature of the ‘SOCIAL’ series of marks used by plaintiff.”
“The mark, the name, and the overall look and feel of the website gave a clear impression that defendants are making a deliberate attempt to imitate and copy plaintiffs name/mark ‘NYKAA’ only to gain monetarily by such deception.”
“Defendant 1 is a counterfeiter and has dragged plaintiff in the Court for an entirely unnecessary litigation, thus, plaintiff will be entitled to actual costs quantified at Rs. 4,59,520.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
“A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”