A century of goodwill belongs to the Firm, not the family: What Calcutta HC’s Fox & Mandal ruling means
Calcutta High Court ruled that the goodwill and reputation of Fox & Mandal belong to the firm, not to the family of its former partners.
Prior use
Bombay High Court restrains METRO FOOTWEAR from infringing registered trade mark ‘METRO’; To decide if ‘METRO’ a well-known mark
“The registration of the plaintiff’s mark in the year 1972, prima facie, granted an exclusive right to the plaintiff to use it, which was infringed when the defendants used the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR.”
‘Registration does not confer immunity from challenges’; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to prevent usage of trade mark ‘HUALI’
The Delhi High Court said that while trade mark registration offers statutory benefits, it does not obliterate prior common law rights established through actual use and accrued goodwill in the market.
Bombay HC grants interim relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd.; restrains Dubond Products India Pvt. Ltd. from using marks “LW” and “LW+”
The Court stated that mere addition of prefix and/or suffix to the impugned mark is inconsequential, thus, it rejected Dubond Products India’s contention that the use of the word “HYDROBUILD” before “LW” in the impugned marks is sufficient to distinguish from the marks of Pidilite Industries.
[Kent Cables v. Kent RO] Delhi High Court permanently restrains Kent RO from selling fans under ‘KENT’ 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.
[M-seal v. R-seal] Can Trademark owner make “user claim” prior to acquisition of the mark from its predecessors? Bombay HC answers
“Disclaimers do not go to the market and a common man of average intelligence or the average consumer would have no knowledge of any disclaimers present in a trademark registration.”