{"id":245849,"date":"2021-03-20T11:15:05","date_gmt":"2021-03-20T05:45:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=245849"},"modified":"2021-03-20T10:07:57","modified_gmt":"2021-03-20T04:37:57","slug":"trademark-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Karnataka High Court:<\/strong> P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose of the applications afresh by giving an opportunity to both sides and in accordance with the law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The facts of the case are such that the respondent\/plaintiff in the original suit is doing business under the name \u2018Matru Ayurveda\u2019 since the year 2015 having trademark deceptively similar to the appellant\/defendant who started his business in the year 2018 with his trademark \u2018Matruveda\u2019, thereby established contacts of the respondent\/plaintiff got deceived and she has suffered huge losses. Therefore she prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the appellant\/defendant from infringing respondent\/plaintiff established registered trademark \u2018Matru Ayurveda\u2019 by using the offending trademark \u2018Matruveda\u2019 in the preparation, sale and distribution of herbal products or by using a deceptively similar well established and registered trademark \u2018Matru Ayurveda\u2019. A suit and applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed wherein temporary injunction was granted and appellant\/defendant were restrained from infringing and passing off of the respondent\/plaintiff registered trademark. Assailing this order, the instant appeal was filed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the appellant\/defendant submitted that the plaintiff had started her business under the tradename and trademark \u2018Matru Ayurveda\u2019 which is laid inside a logo and similarly the appellant\/defendant had started his business under the tradename \u2018Matruveda\u2019 with a logo and there is no such resemblance between the same as will lead any purchaser of the products of either parties to confuse between the same. It was further submitted that he had no opportunity of producing documents in support of his stand that the trademark of the appellant\/defendant is not deceptively similar to the trademark of the respondent\/plaintiff and further that there were several manufacturers who are using trademarks closely similar to the trademark of the respondent\/plaintiff and the defendant with the prefixes \u2018Matro\u2019.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff submitted that the trademark got registered by the appellant\/defendant is subsequent to the registration of the trademark of the respondent\/plaintiff. It was further submitted that the respondent\/plaintiff is a well-established businesswoman who has been marketing her products ever since the year 2015 and the appellant\/defendant had started his business only in the year 2018. It was further contended that on account of the close resemblance of the trademark of the defendant with that of the plaintiff, the business of the respondent\/plaintiff has been affected drastically and therefore the appellant\/defendant is liable to be injuncted from carrying on his business under the trademark \u2018Matruveda\u2019.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court observed that as per Section 2 (1) (zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the \u2018trademark\u2019 is totally different from the trade name. There may be cases where trade name is also the trade mark but in very many cases it may not be so.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court further observed that in the present case there cannot be any dispute that trade names are only a part of the composite whole of the trade mark. The Court while deciding such cases should have in mind the \u2018quintessential common man\u2019 who goes to the neighborhood shop with the idea of purchasing product of his liking. Quoting the Court <strong><em>\u201cHas not the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court said \u2026in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court thus held that the <em>\u201cimpugned order is totally bereft of any discussion of the same. Absent of such discussion, weight of authorities dictate that the impugned order be characterized as perverse and resultantly it is liable to be set aside.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, appeal was disposed off.[N. Dinesh Kumar v. Shweta Khandelwal, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 790\/2021, decided on 15-03-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court: P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[28334,29785,14201,2616],"class_list":["post-245849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-karnataka-high-court","tag-law","tag-permanent-injunction","tag-Trade_Mark"],"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>[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Trademark Dispute\" \/>\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\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Trademark Dispute\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-03-20T05:45:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/\",\"name\":\"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-20T05:45:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Trademark Dispute\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes | SCC Times","description":"Trademark Dispute","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\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes","og_description":"Trademark Dispute","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-20T05:45:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","name":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-20T05:45:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Trademark Dispute","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":134851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/01\/court-finds-mark-ilm-to-be-deceptively-similar-to-iilm-restrains-its-usage\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":0},"title":"Court finds mark &#8216;ILM&#8217; to be deceptively similar to &#8216;IILM&#8217;; restrains its usage","author":"Saba","date":"June 1, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Bench comprising of Deepa Sharma, J. restrained the defendant from using their mark ILM as it was deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff i.e. IILM. The plaintiff set up a school in the year and a management institute by the name of 'Institute for\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":278026,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/vogue-fashion-magazine-v-vogue-fashion-institute-no-trademark-infringement-or-passing-off-committed-by-the-institute-holds-karnataka-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":1},"title":"[Vogue Fashion Magazine v. Vogue Fashion Institute] No trademark infringement or passing off committed by the Institute, holds Karnataka HC","author":"Editor","date":"November 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by \u2018Vogue Institute of Management\u2019 challenging the Trial Court's permanent injunction restraining the appellants to use the trademark \u2018VOGUE\u2019 as a part of their name and trading style, the Bench of M.I Arun J., held that the respondent publishes\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":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Karnataka-High-Court-2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":273586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/13\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-jamshedpur-based-restaurant-social-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-social\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction against Jamshedpur based restaurant SOCIAL 75 for using the registered trademark SOCIAL","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a trademark infringement suit filed by a company namely, Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd. (\u2018plaintiff') running a well-known restaurant, SOCIAL against the offending trademark SOCIAL 75 (\u2018defendant'), Jyoti Singh J. granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, as the impugned trademark is deceptively similar to the registered\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\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/20\/interim-injunction-in-favour-of-dps-society-against-infringement-of-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":3},"title":"Del HC grants interim injunction in favour of DPS Society against Infringement of trademark and crest logo by Delhi Public International School","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing the matter of trademark infringement, opined that, \u201cBesides, considering that parties are in the field of education, deliberate adoption by the Defendants of impugned trade marks and logo that are deceptively similar and\/or identical to the Plaintiff\u2019s registered trade marks\/names and logos\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\/2021\/08\/Screenshot-2021-08-20-at-6.04.50-PM.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":275336,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/10\/delhi-high-court-restrains-appleplant-being-deceptively-visually-and-semantically-similar-to-applestree\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains APPLEPLANT being deceptively, visually and semantically similar to APPLESTREE","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting any product under the trademark \u2018APPLEPLANT\u2019 or any trademark similar to Plaintiff's trademark \u2018APPLESTREE\u2019, which may cause confusion and deception in the market, leading to\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\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255767,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":245849,"position":5},"title":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., decided a matter with regard to infringing the registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY. Present suit was filed for injunction restraining the defendant, men and agent from infringing the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY and its variant. Plaintiff\u2019s company was registered in using the internet as a platform\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245849","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245849\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}