Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioners submitted that the film “Hamare Baarah” portrays lives of married Muslim women to have no independent rights as individuals in society owing to “Aayat 223”, a verse in the Quran which in his view is entirely wrong and a misreading of the verse.
The similarity extends to the use of these marks for identical goods and services, specifically, pizzas and their online delivery, highlights a systematic effort by Defendants 1 to 8 to mislead the public into believing that there is an affiliation or origin connection with plaintiffs.
Defendant earlier using the mark “Ashirvad by Aliaxis” and adopting “ARTISTRY” only after plaintiff’s “ARTIZE” mark gained repute, prima facie, shows that there is a conscious attempt to ride on plaintiff’s reputation.
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 essential for the legal framework to remain vigilant and responsive to challenges presented by digital piracy, ensuring that protections afforded to copyright and intellectual property are not only theoretical but also enforceable and practical in safeguarding rights and interests of rightful owners.
“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.”
“Failure to grant such injunction is bound to result in continued infringement of copyright. Accordingly, the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also justify grant of interim injunction as sought.”
“Balance of convenience lies in the plaintiff’s favour, considering that it is a well-known company in the travel business who has built its goodwill and reputation throughout the years, if an injunction is not granted it will lead to irreparable loss to the plaintiff.”
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“In a case such as this, if injunction is not granted ex parte, it would result in the defendant continuing to defraud the public at the expense of the plaintiff.”
“Though the specific words used for the news programme may themselves not be capable of being monopolized, the combination marks can be protected if they have acquired a secondary significance.”