{"id":221377,"date":"2019-10-22T15:02:23","date_gmt":"2019-10-22T09:32:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=221377"},"modified":"2019-11-29T11:19:35","modified_gmt":"2019-11-29T05:49:35","slug":"del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing a matter in respect to trademark infringement and in lieu of that seeking a permanent injunction, discussed the concept of \u201cacquiescence\u201d by relying on ample of cases.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the present case, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from adopting and using:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Trademark\/trade name \u2018Make My travel\u2019, MMT (letter mark) and the tag line \u2018Dreams Unlimited (Impugned \u2018wordmarks\u2019);<\/li>\n<li>The MakeMyTravel Logo, which includes the infringing word marks namely, MMT and Dreams Unlimited<\/li>\n<li>Their domain name &lt;makemytravelindia.com&gt;;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The above are all stated to be violative of the plaintiff\u2019s statutory and common law rights in its own trademarks \u2013<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>MAKEMYTRIP<\/li>\n<li>MMT<\/li>\n<li>The tag lines MEMORIES UNLIMITED and HOTELS UNLIMITED.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The case of the plaintiff is that, it has presence all across India and several other countries around the world including in the United States of America, the United Arab Emirates and Mauritius. Over the years, the plaintiff has expanded its range of products and services beyond online travel bookings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Plaintiff, through its primary website, www.makemytrip.com and other technology-enhanced platforms including application-based mobile platforms, etc., offers an extensive range of travel services and products, both in India and abroad.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After changing its trade name to include the words, \u201cMakeMyTrip\u201d on August, 2, 2000, plaintiff has been continuously and uninterruptedly using the trademarks MakeMyTrip and MMT, the MakeMyTrip Word Mark as well as the MMT letter mark. Tag Line \u201cMemories Unlimited\u201d and \u201cHotels Unlimited\u201d, have also been continuously and uninterruptedly used by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Plaintiff has earned immense reputation and goodwill on account of extensive and continuous use by the plaintiff. <strong>In order to add further distinctiveness and brand recall to its MakeMyTrip Word Mark, plaintiff has conceived, adopted and used various catchy and stylized logos, all of which contain the MakeMyTrip Word Mark, as their essential feature.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, <em>any unauthorized use of the MakeMyTrip Marks and\/or any other deceptively similar mark would violate the Plaintiff?s statutory and common law rights and an effort to ride upon the immense reputation and goodwill garnered by the Plaintiff in its MakeMyTrip Marks.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, being aggrieved by the adoption and use of the Infringing Mark and Infringing Domain Name, the Plaintiff, through its Counsel, issued a cease and desist notice requisitioning the Defendant to, inter alia, cease all use of the Infringing Marks and Infringing Domain Name.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was further submitted that, infringement and passing off of plaintiff\u2019s marks is proved by the following factors:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Phonetically, visually, structurally and conceptually the competing marks are identical and\/or deceptively similar.<\/li>\n<li>Identity of the idea: The mark MakeMyTravel and MakeMyTrip are combination of three words, where the first two words are identical and last word &#8220;travel&#8221; and &#8220;trip&#8221; convey the same meaning, idea and concept<\/li>\n<li>Nature of goods and services in respect of which the trademarks are being used are identical.<\/li>\n<li>Class of purchasers likely to use services of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is the same.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Defendant\u2019s submissions were as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Plaintiff and its officials were aware that defendant had incorporated a company by name of Make My Travel (India) Private Limited since the year 2010-2011.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During the years 2011-2017, plaintiff and defendant entered into business transactions and on occasions, money was transferred from the account of defendant to that of the plaintiff, thus plaintiff despite being aware of the same did not raise any objection.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further adding to the above, it has been stated that, since the very beginning. The defendant company was using the letter marks MMT in all its email accounts and other communication and the plaintiff along with its officials was aware of the same.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On May, 17<sup>th<\/sup>, 2018, a temporary ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, according to which the following would be applied on the defendants:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201crestraining the Defendant from using in any manner whatsoever, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in any products or services under the infringing marks, namely Make My Travel (word per se), MMT (letter mark). Dreams unlimited (tag line), www.makemytravelindia.com and Make My Travel logos or any other trademark\/trade name\/trade dress or logo\/device, which is identical to and\/or deceptively similar to and\/or plaintiffs MakeMyTrip logo marks, namely, MakeMyTrip (word mark), MMT (letter mark) and Memories Unlimited and Hotels Unlimited (tag line).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Decision of the Court and its Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The main relief sought in the above view was of permanent injunction and the Court has been thus called upon to deliberate the question as to whether the same should be confirmed or vacated.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While deciding the application at the preliminary stage, plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 &amp; 2 as also the application of the Defendant under Order 39 Rule 4, the court has to keep in mind the well-settled principles governing the grant of injunction viz. prima facie case; balance of convenience and the harm or injury likely to be caused on account of the impugned acts of the Defendant.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court while taking reliance on several Supreme Court decisions, laid down the test which is to be applied while evaluating the question regarding the infringement. In <em>F. Hoffman La Roche v. Geofferey Manners, <\/em>(<a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2kw0cpnO\">1969) 2 SCC 716<\/a>, Supreme Court held that,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u201cTrue test is whether the totality of the proposed trade mark is such that it is likely to cause deception or confusion or mistake in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Referring to the decision in the case of, <em>Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadev Gupta<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9Ti05J1C\">AIR 1963 SC 449<\/a>, Court held that for <strong>deceptive resemblance<\/strong>, two important questions that need to be kept in mind are:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>who are the persons that the resemblance must be likely to deceive or confuse and<\/li>\n<li>what rules of comparison are to be adopted in judging whether such resemblance exists;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the above-stated case of the Supreme Court, it was held that,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u201cconfusion is perhaps an appropriate description of the state of mind of a consumer who on seeing a mark thinks that it differs from the mark on goods which he has previously bought, but is doubtful whether the impression is not due to imperfect recollection.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Court while dealing with the present matter stated that while the first two words of the marks <strong>MakeMyTrip and MakeMyTravel <\/strong>are identical, last words, <strong>TRIP and TRAVEL <\/strong>are similar and convey the same idea.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Defendant\u2019s tag line <strong>DREAMS UNLIMITED<\/strong> is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff\u2019s taglines <strong>HOTELS UNLIMITED<\/strong> and <strong>MEMORIES UNLIMITED<\/strong> second word in the tag lines is identical, the <strong>first words DREAMS, MEMORIES and HOTELS<\/strong>, when considered in the context of travel and holiday-related services, <strong>may be used in the same context or idea.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above-stated decisions, Court stated that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. In case the defendant is permitted to continue to use infringing marks, grave and serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Court added to its observation that, the adoption of the mark by the defendant is without any cogent explanation and it prima facie appears to be dishonest.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On perusal of the orders passed by the Court in the case of <em>MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Orbit Corporate Leisure Travels (I) Private Limited, <\/em>Court stated that in the said case, there was an agreement between the defendant\u2019s predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiff, and this crucial factor prevailed upon the Court to accept the <strong>plea of<\/strong> <strong>acquiescence. <\/strong>In the present case,<strong> there is no such agreement on record, the plea of acquiescence is premised merely on the basis of email communications exchanged <\/strong>with booking customer care executives.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <em>Dr Reddy&#8217;s Laboratory Ltd. v. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/rGPKTh54\">2013 SCC OnLine Del 3626<\/a>, the Court took note of the fact that the owners of trademarks or copyrights cannot be expected to run after every infringer and thereby remain involved in litigation at the cost of their business time, but can wait till the time the user of their name starts harming their business interests and starts misleading and confusing their customers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Concept of \u201cAcquiescence\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Acquiescence is a species of estoppels, a rule in enquiry and a rule of evidence and it is essential to the <em>Acquiescence Doctrine <\/em>that it is accompanied by an encouragement or an inducement: he who possesses a legal right must have encouraged the alleged violator of that right in acting to the latter\u2019s detriment, confident in the knowledge that the former is not asserting his rights against the violator.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, the Court held that defendant has no justification for the use of the infringing marks, except for the plea of suppression and acquiescence, both of which would require further and deeper scrutiny and examination during the course of the trial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u201cIrreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendant is not restrained from using the impugned marks.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, injunction order dated 17-05-2018 is made absolute and shall continue to operate during the pendency of the present suit. [Make My Trip (INDIA) (P) Ltd. v. Make My Travel (INDIA) (P) Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/RsumVm0U\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine Del 10638<\/b><\/a>, decided on 18-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing a matter in respect to trademark infringement and in lieu of that seeking a <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[38009,38008,14201,38007,3221],"class_list":["post-221377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-make-my-travel","tag-make-my-trip","tag-permanent-injunction","tag-plea-of-acquiescence","tag-Trademark"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing a matter in respect to trademark infringement and in lieu of that seeking a\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-10-22T09:32:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-29T05:49:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-22T09:32:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-29T05:49:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement","og_description":"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing a matter in respect to trademark infringement and in lieu of that seeking a","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-22T09:32:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-29T05:49:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/","name":"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-10-22T09:32:23+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-29T05:49:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/del-hc-plea-of-acquiescence-rejected-permanent-injunction-granted-to-make-my-trip-against-make-my-travel-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to \u201cMake My Trip\u201d against \u201cMake My Travel\u201d for trademark infringement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":223779,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/03\/cal-hc-acquiescence-only-arises-out-of-positive-acts-to-be-differentiated-from-mere-silence-or-inaction-or-from-inordinate-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":0},"title":"Cal HC | &#8220;Acquiescence&#8221; only arises out of positive acts; to be differentiated from mere silence or inaction or from inordinate delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ., allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge whereby he had rejected the appellant-plaintiff's application for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from using the subject trademark. The appellant and the respondent were in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/20\/permanent-injunction-granted-for-infringement-of-trademark-on-satisfaction-of-triple-identity-test\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":1},"title":"Permanent injunction granted for infringement of trademark on satisfaction of \u2018triple identity test\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manmohan, J. decreed a suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of plaintiff \u2019s trademarks. It was an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a registered owner of the trademarks SUMEET and SUMEET TRADITIONAL for their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":205486,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/19\/use-of-aaj-tak-in-name-of-fortnightly-magazine-held-to-be-in-violation-of-trademark-injunction-granted-thereagainst\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":2},"title":"Use of AAJ TAK in name of fortnightly magazine held to be in violation of trademark; injunction granted thereagainst","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. passed a permanent injunction decree against the defendants, restraining them from using the trademark \u201cAAJ TAK AAMNE SAAMNE\u201d; \u201cAAJ TAK\u201d; \u201caajtakaamnesaamne.com\u201d or any other trademark deceptively or phonetically similar to registered trademark \u201cAAJ TAK\u201d. In the present case,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":201647,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/11\/trademark-paras-has-acquired-distinctiveness-for-milk-products-use-of-same-for-cognate-products-held-infringement-thereof\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":3},"title":"Trademark PARAS has acquired distinctiveness for milk products; use of same for cognate products held infringement thereof","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 11, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. decreed a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction from using its registered trademark PARAS. The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of trademark PARAS. The trademark was adopted in 1987 in respect of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":80141,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/20\/yahoo-proves-trademark-infringement-by-apricot-foods-passing-off-goods-by-using-goodwill\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":4},"title":"YAHOO! proves trademark infringement by Apricot foods &#8211; passing off goods by using goodwill","author":"Saba","date":"October 20, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0\u00a0In this case the plaintiffs are seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from passing off of goods by infringing upon the trademark of the plaintiffs. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the trademark \u2018YAHOO\u2019 that has been registered in India in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":270091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/14\/heitec-v-s-heitech-ecj-rules-a-warning-letter-for-trademark-infringement-isnt-sufficient-to-end-acquiescence\/","url_meta":{"origin":221377,"position":5},"title":"HEITEC v\/s HEITECH| ECJ rules a warning letter for trademark infringement isn&#8217;t sufficient to end acquiescence","author":"Editor","date":"July 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 European Court of Justice (ECJ): In a far-reaching decision, the Bench of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. Rodin, J.-C. Bonichot, L.S. Rossi and O. Spineanu-Matei, JJ., held that sending of a warning letter for trademark infringement, per se, will not break the limitation period and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/ECJ.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/ECJ.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/ECJ.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/ECJ.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/ECJ.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}