Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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 Court found that the respondents’ label is a near replica of the appellant’s trademark and design, including the “Swastik” symbol, which has been consistently used by Rajani Products since 1983.
The plaintiff averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the registered trade marks has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
The data can be misused for a variety of purposes including for the purpose of impersonating applicant- HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which will involve infringement of applicant’s registered trade mark and passing off.
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).
Defendant’s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant’s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark “JHAMPA” on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.
Calcutta High Court acknowledged the importance of strict compliance with the requirements of Section 236 of the Mahomedan Law in pre-emption cases.
“A consumer going into the market to purchase premium/ultra-premium whisky will not be confused by the word ‘Pride’ in the name of any brand. The mark has to be compared as a whole.”
“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”
Rajasthan High Court: Sabina, J. dismissed the appeal on the ground that party will suffer an irreparable loss if the application was