{"id":300221,"date":"2023-08-28T15:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-08-28T09:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=300221"},"modified":"2023-08-28T12:47:21","modified_gmt":"2023-08-28T07:17:21","slug":"delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court<\/span>: In a case wherein, Christian Louboutin SAS, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2, Clermon ET Associes, France, filed a suit against the Shoe Boutique, the defendant, to restrain them from manufacturing and selling of identical spike design shoes and footwear, Pratibha M. Singh, J.*<\/span> opined that the acts of the defendant were nothing more but an attempt to pass off its own goods as the plaintiff's and directed the defendant to abide by its undertaking and should not copy the plaintiff's designs and in case of any breach, the defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as damages to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the plaintiffs were an entity that existed in France and were well-known for ‘red sole' shoes which were manufactured and sold by them. The ‘red sole' on heeled shoes was a signature design of the plaintiffs which was also registered as a trade mark.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs stated that the plaintiff's product was endorsed by well-known celebrities and was also depicted in well-known TV series and films. The plaintiffs stated that their shoes had acquired enormous reputation and goodwill worldwide including India and in India, the plaintiffs' products with the unique designs had been sold since February 2012.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs further stated that, in around 2010, they had also created a new unique ‘spiked shoe style' with spike patterns for both men and women. The plaintiffs further stated that the ‘spiked shoe style' was inherently distinctive and it could be instantly recognised as emanating from the plaintiffs alone.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs filed the present suit being aggrieved by the defendant's manufacture and sale of identical spike design shoes and footwear. It was submitted that the defendants operated in various malls including Select Citywalk Mall, Saket from where the spike footwear had been picked up by the plaintiffs' investigators. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant had identically copied the shoe designs and was manufacturing the identically designed shoes with the same get up. The plaintiffs further contended that their reputation could be evaluated on a ChatGPT query, wherein when asked whether the plaintiff was known for spiked men's shoes, the ChatGPT affirmed that the plaintiffs were known for their iconic, red-soled shoes, including spiked styles for both men and women.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the defendant contended that their shoe designs were on a ‘made to order' basis, only when the customer requested for the same. The defendant further submitted an undertaking that the defendant would not in future imitate, manufacture or sell any shoes which were imitative of the plaintiffs' designs.<\/p>\n

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

The Court stated that in Christian Louboutin SAS<\/i> v. Mr. Pawan Kumar,<\/i> 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12173<\/a>, the ‘red sole' mark of the plaintiffs had already been declared to be a well-known mark under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that it did not recognized the plaintiff's monopoly over all spiked or coloured soles. The Court further opined that, for an injunction to be granted, the impugned products ought to be a colourable or slavish imitation of the plaintiff's get up and designs.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the responses from ChatGPT and the one relied upon by the plaintiffs showed that the said tool could not be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The Court opined that the response of a Large Language Model based chatbots such as ChatGPT, depends upon numerous factors which included the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data, etc. The Court further stated that the accuracy and reliability of AI generated data was still in the grey area and there were possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws and imaginative data being generated.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that undoubtedly, at the present stage of technological development, AI could not substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process and at best it could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or research and nothing more.<\/p>\n

The Court, after perusing the parties' shoe designs, opined that there had been a clear intention to imitate and acquire monetary gain on the strength of the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. The Court further opined that undoubtedly, the defendant's products were knock-offs or look-alikes of the plaintiffs' distinctive shoes and footwear. The Court stated that the defendant had imitated many designs and copied all the essential features of the plaintiff's footwear such as ‘red sole' and ‘spiked shoe style'.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of the defendant's undertaking and directed the defendant to abide by the undertaking to not copy or imitate any of the plaintiffs' shoe designs. The Court stated that if any breach of the undertaking was found, the defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as damages to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Further, considering that the defendant was also using the pictures of well-known Bollywood celebrities on its Instagram account and also had sold the shoes in high end malls, the Court directed the Defendant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as costs to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the suit was decreed, and all pending applications were disposed of.<\/p>\n

[Christian Louboutin SAS v. The Shoe Boutique, CS(COMM) 582 of 2023, decided on 22-08-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Plaintiffs: Pravin Anand, Dhruv Anand, Udita Patro and Nimrat Singh, Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Amit Verma and Siddhartha Luthra, Advocates along with Kunal Makkar<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Pratibha M. Singh<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"trade<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Accuracy and reliability of an Artificial Intelligence (‘AI') generated data is still in the grey area. At best the tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":293503,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[60594,30105,56675,2543,60592,60593,60589,60591,60590,2616],"class_list":["post-300221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-adjudicatory-process","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-chatgpt","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-human-intelligence","tag-humane-element","tag-red-sole","tag-shoe-designs","tag-spiked-shoe-style","tag-Trade_Mark"],"yoast_head":"\nArtificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi HC| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.\" \/>\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\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-08-28T09:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-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=\"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses\" \/>\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\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/\",\"name\":\"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi HC| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-28T09:30:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses\"}]},{\"@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":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.","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\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses","og_description":"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-28T09:30:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses","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\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/","name":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-28T09:30:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Delhi High Court refused to rely on ChatGPT responses and held that artificial intelligence could not substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/28\/delhi-hc-artificial-intelligence-cannot-substitute-human-intelligence-in-adjudicatory-process\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Artificial Intelligence cannot substitute human intelligence in adjudicatory process: Delhi High Court refuses to rely on ChatGPT responses"}]},{"@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\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":298543,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/04\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-in-favour-puma-for-design-infringement-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court grants injunction in favour of PUMA for alleged design infringement of its RS-X 3D Series shoes","author":"Arunima","date":"August 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The main grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant 2 has by adopting a trade dress for its BERKINS brand range of shoes which is nearly identical to the plaintiff's RS-X range of shoes, sought to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"puma rs-x 3d shoe design infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/puma-rs-x-3d-shoe-design-infringement.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/puma-rs-x-3d-shoe-design-infringement.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/puma-rs-x-3d-shoe-design-infringement.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/puma-rs-x-3d-shoe-design-infringement.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298794,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/07\/delhi-high-court-injuncts-wow-momo-from-using-deceptively-similar-mark-wow-china-bistro\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants injunction against WOW MOMO from using WOW CHINA BISTRO marks","author":"Arunima","date":"August 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that the composite mark CHINA BISTRO cannot be said to be lacking in distinctiveness, when seen as a whole, in the absence of any evidence or material to that effect led by Wow Momo Foods Limited.","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\/04\/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\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291705,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/10\/delhi-high-court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-to-royal-green-whisky-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ad interim injunction to \u2018Royal Green’ whisky against \u2018Royal Queen’, having similar trade dress","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who comes across the plaintiff's Royal Green Whisky on a particular date and, later, comes across the defendant's Royal Queen product, will be confused between the two.","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\/04\/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\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298461,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/delhi-hc-grants-permanent-injunction-to-new-balance-athletics-inc-for-its-n-device-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to New Balance Athletics Inc for its \u2018N\u2019 device mark","author":"Simranjeet","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe matter will next be listed on 16-08-2023, to decide whether the plaintiff's registered trade marks , and , are \"well-known\u201d trade marks within the meaning of 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\/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":298130,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/31\/prestige-cannot-be-granted-permanent-injunction-as-suit-design-expired-delhi-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":4},"title":"No permanent injunction to Prestige after expiration of suit design; entitled to rendition of accounts against Gupta Light House: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe defendant's pressure cookers are imitative of the suit designs of the plaintiff and the case of piracy under Section 22(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 exists, but due to the expiry, the suit design is now in the public domain and there can be no judgment or decree restraining\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\/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":283811,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/13\/delhi-high-court-injuncts-intercontinental-great-brand-from-using-fabio-being-deceptive-similar-to-parle-product-oreo-injunction-trademark-trade-dress-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":300221,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Parle company from using FAB!O being deceptively similar to Cadbury’s OREO","author":"Editor","date":"February 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection who has earlier purchased and had the OREO cookie would, when he sees the FAB!O cookie pack, be clearly likely to associate the FAB!O cookie with the OREO cookie that he had earlier enjoyed (ass uming he did). That, by itself, satisfies\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\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300221","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=300221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300221\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293503"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=300221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=300221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=300221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}