{"id":278026,"date":"2022-11-25T11:00:39","date_gmt":"2022-11-25T05:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=278026"},"modified":"2022-12-01T16:39:13","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T11:09:13","slug":"vogue-fashion-magazine-v-vogue-fashion-institute-no-trademark-infringement-or-passing-off-committed-by-the-institute-holds-karnataka-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"[Vogue Fashion Magazine v. Vogue Fashion Institute] No trademark infringement or passing off committed by the Institute, holds Karnataka HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Karnataka High Court<\/b>: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction restraining the appellants to use the trademark ‘VOGUE’ as a part of their name and trading style, the Bench of M.I Arun J., held that the respondent publishes an internationally acclaimed fashion magazine, whereas the appellant runs an institution pertaining to fashion technology ; since the appellant is not publishing any magazine by the name of ‘Vogue<\/i>’, hence, there is no infringement of trademark.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, while considering that whether the use of the word ‘Vogue<\/i>’ by the appellants amounted to passing-off, the Court held that while Vogue magazine is generally read by a limited section of society who are aware about fashion, its purchasers are likely to know that the magazine is only involved in the business of publishing and not running an institute. The Court stated that it is highly unlikely that the students joining the appellants’ institute will get confused between Vogue- the fashion magazine<\/i> and Vogue- the fashion technology institute.<\/i><\/p>\n

Facts and Legal Trajectory of the Case:<\/span><\/b> Advanced Magazine Publisher’s Inc. had been publishing the internationally popular fashion magazine VOGUE<\/b> since 1892 and is the registered proprietor in India of the trademark VOGUE under Class-16 of Trademarks Classification of Goods and Services, in respect of magazine publications.<\/p>\n

In 1998, the respondent (then plaintiff<\/i>) came to know about the appellant (then defendant<\/i>) running a training institute named- VOGUE Institute of Fashion Technology<\/b> using slogans like – “VOGUE, the great career option<\/i>”. Consequently, the respondent-plaintiff took the legal route.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court framed and answered the following questions-<\/Span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the plaintiff proved that it is the proprietor of the trademark VOGUE in respect of fashion magazine and is using the trademark for over a century and is the registered proprietor in India as well?<\/i> – Affirmative<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the plaintiff proved that using the trademark for over 100 years, the mark VOGUE is now been exclusively identified with the plaintiff?<\/i>– Affirmative<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the plaintiff proved the defendant’s use of the world-famous trademark to trade upon and benefit from the reputation attached to the said mark?<\/i> Affirmative<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Whether the defendant was able to prove the dissimilarity between the names and that their name is sufficiently distinct?<\/i> Negative<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief of permanent injunction; direction to render an account of profits and decree for the amount due after rendering of account, against the defendant?<\/i> Affirmative for all three<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    As a result of the afore-stated verdict rendered by the Trial Court, the instant appeal was preferred.<\/p>\n

    Contentions by the appellants\/defendants:<\/span><\/p>\n