Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
There is no absolute bar on the Trial Court to consider the subsequent developments and condone the delay if justifiable grounds are made out in the Application for condonation of delay.
The plaintiff stated that on 22-01-2025, the defendant announced on various social media platforms that the Assigned Film will be released on 27-03-2025. He stated that the theatrical release of the Assigned Film is proposed in the Southern States of India i.e., Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Pondicherry in original language – Tamil as well as overseas (except Nepal).
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 infringing materials found on the site of the defendant are counterfeit goods of the plaintiff’s products, affixed with the plaintiff’s registered marks. A clear indicative of the counterfeiting activity towards the plaintiff’s products, are the observations and photographs as attached by the Local Commissioner in its report.
It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs’ RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant’s justification for adopting the mark ‘RAMADA’ is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.
The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.
The comparison of images of both names makes it abundantly clear that defendant 1 has copied the most distinctive part of the plaintiff’s mark, which is ‘Evergreen’. In the case of the defendant 1, the word ‘Evergreen’ has the prefix “JV” and the suffix “Sweets and Treats”, whereas in the plaintiff’s case, the word ‘Evergreen’ is followed by the word “Sweet House”.
Lenovo has satisfied the requirements of Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act for cancelling RPD Workstations trade mark ‘THINBOOK’.
Delhi High Court held that the defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark and deceived unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting Louis Vuitton’s registered marks.
“Private Respondents are free to reuse generic beer bottles manufactured by third parties which do not violate the label, trademark/brand/logo of another entity.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week
It is not necessary for a registered owner of a trademark to proceed against all entities using similar marks in order to proceed against any one of them. There may be a myriad reasons why a proprietor of a registered trademark may refrain from proceeding against entities that it considers are using infringing marks.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“It is immaterial if the term or directions in a decree is contrary to law. The Executing Court cannot go behind the same, and has to give effect to the decree.”
The Court was satisfied that plaintiff 1 — Domino’s IP Holder LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, as they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction was not granted.
“Invoices issued by the defendant have also been procured which exhibit that they are selling products not only in their store under the name of “FAB INDIA EMPORIUM” but they are also selling their products under the same tradename.”
Independent News Service Private Limited was incorporated in the year 1997 by its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, Rajat Sharma and got the permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government to uplink its 24 hours Hindi News channel called INDIA TV.
“The Defendants have entirely imitated Plaintiff No. 1’s registered trademarks, replicating all aspects such as font of the letters, design of the logo, color scheme, size, style, and placement of letter and the taglines. Both the marks are also used for identical services.”
The Court was prima facie satisfied that Amaris Flagship’s impugned “Shield-It Necklace” is visually and structurally similar, with similar colour combinations and placement of elements/ ornamentation, to Bulgari S.P.A.’s “Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace”.
Plaintiff’s X mark is derived from their ‘SPARX’ logo and has been used in a standalone form in relation to its footwear products sold under the ‘SPARX’ brand. Plaintiff’s grievance is against the defendants who started using defendants’ X mark, which was deceptively similar, for footwear as well, being identical goods.