Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 mandates the police to obtain the Registrar’s opinion before conducting a seizure under the Trade Marks Act. However, there was no record evidencing such mandatory consultation. The failure to comply with this statutory requirement vitiated the seizure proceedings and amounted to a jurisdictional error.”
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 petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
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.
by Jawad Shaikh* and Aparna Chaturvedi**
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).
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
“An average consumer with an imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived into thinking that the plaintiff has opened a new ‘SOCIAL’ outlet in Vadodara, Gujarat where the defendant is operating its outlet.”
The term “Aashiqui” does not describe the general category of goods or services (films) but instead functions as a distinctive brand identifier for the Aashiqui Franchise.
The Registrar dealing with an application under the Trade Marks Act is a quasi-judicial and delegation of power under Section 3(2) is an administrative power and as such the Associate Managers are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders.
The Court stated that physicians, doctors, and chemists are knowledgeable in their field, however they are not infallible, and in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products there cannot be any leeway for mistakes, since even a possibility of a mistake may prove fatal to the consumers.
Notwithstanding the abolition of IPAB and the power of rectification reverting to the High Court, a Trial Judge would have to stay in its hands once it is apprised of pendency of a rectification.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
“What is striking, in this case, is that Respondent 1 has produced no document whatsoever which would prove their use since 1957, as claimed.”
“The risk of having others bona fide using ‘JINDAL’ as a name for their products, and in the marks used on their products, is a risk that plaintiff consciously took, when it obtained registration of the mark ‘JINDAL’.”
“Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff, and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
“The terminus ad quem, by which date the plaintiff has to prove the acquisition of the requisite goodwill and reputation for a plea of passing off to succeed, is the date of commencement, by the defendant, of the rival mark.”