Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Hermes’ long-standing reputation and consistent use of the Subject Marks across jurisdictions establishes a continuous and significant commercial presence.”
The defendants were operating an 11-room hotel by the name of ‘Bukhara Inn’ and had refused to comply with the cease and desist notice sent by ITC Ltd.
“WIPRO has been expanding into various sectors since the 1980s and has obtained various registrations for the ‘WIPRO’ mark in various classes with the earliest registration in the year 1991.”
The defendants were engaged in providing taxi services across Dehradun and Delhi and were marketing themselves as an inter-state national level service, using the name ‘JIO’.
“This Court while dealing with edible items for human consumption, owes a duty of exercising a greater degree of care, caution as also to apply a more stringent test to avoid any possibility/likelihood of confusion between different edible products amongst the general public.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
The plaintiffs submitted that the confusingly similar trade mark in the field of pharmaceuticals, create greater injury as compared to products and services in other fields.
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.
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’.
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
“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 Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by ITC Ltd. seeking protection of the trade mark ‘BUKHARA', the Single Judge