Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The combination of the two words “RAM” and “BANDHU” is a coined word and arbitrary adaption being totally unconnected with the goods marketed under the trade mark, gives rise to claim for exclusivity.”
“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.”
The use of colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow of the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s mark.
Around December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO that the defendant commenced use of the name METBRANDS and until that time, the defendant was operating and offering goods and services under the name ‘METRENDS’.
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 Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.
Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive/leading/memorable/essential feature).
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.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
“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’.”
Sterling Agro Industries emerges victorious in the trademark clash between NOVA and NOVYA, as Delhi High Court decrees in their favor, enforcing a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarding litigation costs.
Madras High Court said that the lids were identical as the design was one and the same and added that the Prestige was in the market of manufacturing pressure cookers for a long time and their trade mark is well known and their turnover was huge
There will be confusion in the market, especially, in the nature of the product being Cookies, sold in the shelves of supermarkets, any ordinary customer looking at the shelf is bound to be deceived. Therefore, the product of ITC Ltd. is deceptively similar to that of Britannia.
“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.”
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
“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.”
Madras High Court has also granted the plaintiff a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from committing passing off of its restaurant business by using deceptively similar trade mark.
Kent Cables who is admittedly prior registrant of the trade mark ‘KENT’ has, prima facie, succeeded in showing ‘prior user’ and adoption of the trade mark ‘KENT’ for fans.
User traffic may be diverted due to the same or similar domain name, which can result in a user mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of the one intended. A domain name might, therefore, have all characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.