Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
“Defendants’ use of a similar mark/packaging in similar combinations not only raises concerns about potential confusion but also suggests an attempt to free ride on plaintiff’s established reputation.”
“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.”
“To hold that a customer would be confused, because the word ‘XPERT’ forms the second part of the second word of the impugned mark, would be consigning reality to oblivion.”
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.