Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.”
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.
by Dr Pratima Narayan*
The mark having a combination of words and devices had to be considered as a whole for the purposes of grant of registration.
Bombay High Court explained that there is no power vested in the police under Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to seal the factory premises, where the incriminating articles are situated.
by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta
by Aniket Aggarwal*