{"id":297748,"date":"2023-07-26T17:30:07","date_gmt":"2023-07-26T12:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=297748"},"modified":"2023-08-01T13:26:55","modified_gmt":"2023-08-01T07:56:55","slug":"tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi:<\/b> In a case wherein an application was filed by the plaintiff, the Polo\/Lauren Company L.P seeking interim injunction restraining the defendant, Home Needs to export, manufacture, marketing, using, selling\/soliciting, advertising etc., the trade mark\/label \"polo<\/a>, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 held that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to establish that the defendant was infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff or passing off its goods as the goods of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief of injunction. Hence, the Court dismissed the application and held that the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The plaintiff was engaged in manufacture, distribution, trade, and sale of a wide range of clothing, fashion and lifestyle products including spans fashion wear, sportswear, eye wear, luggage, bags and luxurious home décor and other allied and related goods and offering services in connection therewith. The plaintiff adopted the mark ‘POLO’ in 1967 and subsequently had been using its formative trade mark in conjunction with other words\/marks in various styles and artistic formats with and\/or without device of Polo Player, which had been created and were being created over a period of time viz POLO, POLO RALPH LAUREN.<\/p>\n

\"polo<\/a>       \"polo<\/a><\/p>\n

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, soliciting, selling, displaying and trading of range of household products and kitchen utensils, including but not limited to, stainless steel vacuum insulated bottles, single wall bottles, trays, cookware’s, dinnerware and other allied\/related products and defendant had adopted and started using the trade mark, \"polo<\/a> in relation to its impugned goods and defendant’s adoption of the said trade mark was in complete violation of the plaintiff’s statutory and common law right in the said trade mark and copyright. The plaintiff further submitted that mere addition of the word ‘LIFETIME’ to the term ‘POLO’ did not render it distinctive and distinguishable. It had been further stated that the impugned trade mark\/label adopted by the defendant were identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark\/label in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and its essential features.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court observed that in most of the plaintiff’s trade mark, besides Polo word, Ralph Lauren was also used along with POLO player on horse whereas in the defendant’s trade mark besides POLO, the word ‘Lifetime’ was also used hence except the word ‘POLO’ there was no similarity between plaintiff’s trade mark and defendant’s trade mark. The Court further opined that from the documents, it was prima facie evident that the plaintiff was in the business of manufacturing\/selling fashion wear whereas the defendant was admittedly in the business of manufacturing\/selling the kitchenware goods, therefore, they were dealing with in different goods and so there was very less scope of customers\/purchasers of the goods of defendant being confused that they were purchasing the goods of the plaintiff. Thus, the Court opined that it did not agree with the contention of the plaintiff’s counsel that the plaintiff had such a goodwill and reputation in India that the customers would relate defendant’s goods being of plaintiff’s due to use of word POLO in defendant trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the plaintiff started selling its fashion goods in India in 2018, whereas defendant’s predecessor or even defendant started using trade mark ‘POLO’ much before 2018. The Court opined that the invoice filed by the defendant proved that it produced and sold goods with trade mark ‘POLO’ since 2005 and the defendant’s predecessor applied for registration of trade mark ‘POLO’ in 2009 though later he abandoned it, the defendant got the mark ‘POLO Lifetime’ registered in 2011, therefore, the Court that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to prove that it was prior user in India.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to establish that the defendant was infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff or passing off its goods as the goods of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff failed to show that balance of convenience lied in its favour and that irreparable injury or loss would be caused to the plaintiff but, rather it would be caused to the defendant as it would amount to shut down of his business despite the fact that the defendant was the registered owner of the trade mark ‘POLO Lifetime’ and till date, the said registration was not cancelled, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief of injunction.<\/p>\n

Hence, the Court dismissed the application and held that the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.<\/p>\n

[The Polo\/Lauren Company L.P. v. Home Needs, 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 17<\/a>, Order dated 14-7-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":297777,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4721],"tags":[59721,3215,14321,59722,59718,59720,59719,38202,2616],"class_list":["post-297748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-district-court","tag-fashion-wear","tag-infringement","tag-interim-injunction","tag-kitchenware","tag-polo","tag-polo-lifetime","tag-ralph-lauren","tag-tis-hazari-court","tag-Trade_Mark"],"yoast_head":"\n'Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement'; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime'<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.\" \/>\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\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-07-26T12:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-01T07:56:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 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\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/\",\"name\":\"'Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement'; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime'\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-26T12:00:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-01T07:56:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"tis hazari court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019\"}]},{\"@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\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"'Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement'; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime'","description":"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.","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\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019","og_description":"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-07-26T12:00:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-01T07:56:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","name":"'Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement'; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime'","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-07-26T12:00:07+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-01T07:56:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Tis Hazari Court vacated interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark 'POLO Lifetime' as Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"tis hazari court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019"}]},{"@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\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":307378,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/18\/dhc-grants-stay-on-order-vacating-injunction-restraining-home-needs-from-using-polo-lauren-marks-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":0},"title":"Delhi HC grants stay on Tiz Hazari Court\u2019s order vacating ad-interim injunction restraining Home Needs from using marks \u2018POLO LIFETIME\u2019, \u2018RALPH LAUREN\u2019 and word \u2018POLO\u2019","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe trade marks POLO\/RALPH LAUREN\/POLO PLAYER DEVICE are liable to be recognized as \u2018well-known\u2019 marks as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":1},"title":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/09\/trademark-infringement-suit-filed-by-bennett-coleman-disposed-of-by-tis-hazari-courts-after-defendants-pay-damages-of-re-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":2},"title":"Trademark Infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman partly disposed of by Tis Hazari Courts after defendants pay damages of Re 1, reach settlement","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Tis Hazari Court: Man Mohan Sharma, District Judge, partly disposed of a trademark infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., noting that the plaintiffs and the defendants reached a settlement agreement. Factual Background Plaintiff was aggrieved by the actions of the Defendants who committed the trademark infringement and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tis-hazari","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/26\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-tata-sia-airlines-limited-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-restrains-vistara-media-private-limited-from-using-the-mark-vistara\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Tata Sia Airlines Limited in a trade mark infringement suit; restrains Vistara Media Private Limited from using the mark \u2018VISTARA\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"November 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J. passed an interim order restraining Vistara Media Private Limited from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":279621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-sukam-systems-p-ltd-for-its-trade-mark-su-kam-against-lithium-power-energy-p-ltd-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction to Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. for its trade mark \u2018Su-Kam\u2019 against Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks \u2018Su-Kam\u2019, \u2018BIG conqueror Tubular Battery\u2019 and \u2018BIG Warrior Tubular Battery\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":253563,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":297748,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement. Legacy of Rajdhani Plaintiff had originally conceived and adopted the trademark\/label \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 for several products. Plaintiff company was formed in 1983 and carried forward the said business under the trademark\/label\u2019 Rajdhani\u2019. Trademarks\/Labels are owned\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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\/297748","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\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297748\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/297777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}