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.
A customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who comes across the plaintiff's Royal Green Whisky on a particular date and, later, comes across the defendant's Royal Queen product, will be confused between the two.
The use of ‘VIVANTA VACATION CLUB' as a part of a trade name will likely deceive unwary consumers of their association with the mark ‘VIVANTA' as a domain name can have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Google LLC for its mark “GOOGLE” and awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as damages to Google LLC which was to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.
Delhi High Court observed that no issue regarding the validity of the registrations of trademarks of the plaintiff is liable to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection who has earlier purchased and had the OREO cookie would, when he sees the FAB!O cookie pack, be clearly likely to associate the FAB!O cookie with the OREO cookie that he had earlier enjoyed (ass uming he did). That, by itself, satisfies the test of —initial interest confusion.
“The Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.”
There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.
by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta
The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.
The Delhi High Court held that the marks ‘WhiteHat Jr’ and ‘WhiteHat Sr’ were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘WhiteHat Jr’.
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.
Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.