Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The fact that the customer may on a closer examination of products and enquiries find that the impugned trade marks are not associated with the appellant’s trade marks would not take away from the fact that the impugned marks bear a similarity with the appellants trade mark, which led to the confusion.”
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 defendant’s contention that the expression “1K PUR” is common to trade or publici juris, was rejected and the Court opined that a party asserting that a word/expression has become common to trade must satisfy the test of extensive, actual, and continuous use of such an expression in the market.
The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant’s and respondent’s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.
The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word ‘HIRECT’ is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff’s registered mark.
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.
The Court directed the Commissioners to conduct a search at the book houses and seize the infringing products bearing EBC’s registered trade marks or containing contents identical or deceptively similar to EBC’s books, books without hologram, packaging, labels, printing material and other material that reflect infringement of copyright and trade mark.
Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for taking a registered trade mark off the Register on account of non-use of the trade mark.
The Court finds reconsideration of respondent 1’s application for registration of the trade mark ‘CLARIWASH’ registered 14 years ago, on account of procedural error manifestly unfair.
With consent of both the parties, the matter is referred to the Senior Mediator of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
“If the plaintiff is found to have indulged in deception or falsity by use of clever drafting, only to create an illusion of urgent interim belief, the Court would insist upon compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.”
“When consumers encounter different products with similar branding in the same retail context, the risk of assuming a common source or affiliation increases.”
“Even after the termination of their contractual relationship and the explicit withdrawal of rights to use the plaintiff’s trademarks and logos, defendants have unauthorisedly continued use of their deceptively similar marks.”
“A risk of trade mark infringement occurs when a registered trade mark is used as a keyword by a third party to link its website to promote its goods and services, which creates confusion in the minds of the consumers about the source of the product.”
“Since defendants are using different marks on outer packaging of the impugned products and identical roundel devices on the individual cigarette sticks, the Local Commissioner is permitted to open cigarette packs to inspect the logos/devices on the individual cigarette sticks.”
Madras High Court said that in respect of the motorcycle industry, the trade mark ‘Royal Enfield’ is well-known, not only in India, but also in abroad. Their annual reports also prove that their turnover runs into several hundreds of crores of rupees and they have carved a niche for themselves in the motorcycle industry.
“The matter will next be listed on 16-08-2023, to decide whether the plaintiff’s registered trade marks 
, 
and 
, are “well-known” trade marks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
“The term ‘ZENITH’' even being a common English expression cannot be regarded as ‘publici juris’ in the context of services relating to education in dance.”
The Delhi High Court opined that Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd. will not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX ', which was registered in its favour for PVC pipes.