Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Registration of identical trade mark, specifically targeting the same class of goods raises a significant concern for potential confusion and deception among the public.”
The marks have to be compared as a whole mark, thus compared, there is no phonetic similarity between NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI.
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“Insofar as the use of the name/mark ‘GLAF’ or any other alternate name/mark is concerned, the parties are referred to mediation, so that they can agree upon an alternate name that Gurugram Land and Finance (P) Ltd. can use.”
“The plaintiff’s baby gym product is quite a distinctive product which is designed in a particular form along with depiction of characters which are known loosely as a ‘Rainforest Family’ characters.”
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.
The Delhi High Court opined that the defendants took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton (LV) marks and deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the LV marks.
The Delhi High Court opined that ‘NOVAEGIS’ was, phonetically identical to ‘NOVARTIS’, when tested from the point of view of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and thus, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of ‘NOVARTIS’.
The Delhi High Court held that KFC cannot have any exclusive right in the word “CHICKEN”, but the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed for advertisement of application for the mark “CHICKEN ZINGER” in Class 29.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Subway's plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food's mark “SUBERB” in a trade mark infringement case and held that the appearance of Infinity Food's red and white “SUBERB” mark could not be said to be deceptively similar to Subway's device mark, “SUBWAY”.
Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.