{"id":306644,"date":"2023-11-06T18:00:03","date_gmt":"2023-11-06T12:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=306644"},"modified":"2023-11-10T14:50:01","modified_gmt":"2023-11-10T09:20:01","slug":"delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the Act’), C. Hari Shankar, J.*<\/span>, opined that if the plaintiff desired to question the validity of the mark ‘FABIO’, then as per Section 124(1)(b)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the plaintiff had to specifically challenge that mark. The Court by straining its interpretative faculties could not read into the plaint a plea that the registration of the defendant’s mark was invalid, where no such plea was actually made in the plaint. Thus, the Court opined that since the mark ‘FABIO’ was not the subject matter of challenge in the plaint and the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark ‘FABIO’ in the defendant’s favour, the present application of the plaintiff failed, and accordingly dismissed the application.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The plaintiff, International Great Brands LLC, was a proprietor of the registered device marks \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a> and word marks ‘OREO’ and ‘OREO O’S’. These marks of the plaintiffs had become synonymous with vanilla filled chocolate cream cracker biscuits manufactured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff came across the journal advertisements of trade mark applications filed by the defendant for the marks FAB!O and \"\"<\/a>, which was opposed by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had recently started manufacturing, selling and advertising cream filled biscuit namely FAB!O with the marks ‘FAB!O’, \"\"<\/a>, trade dress \"\"<\/a>, \"\"<\/a> and cookie trade dress \"\"<\/a> (‘impugned marks’) were virtually identical and deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s well known and earlier trade marks.<\/p>\n

Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit for the grant of permanent injunction and also filed the present application under Section 124<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

The Court relied on Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.<\/span> v. Basant Kumar Makhija<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6598<\/a> and opined that to apply for Section 124(1)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, in a case where the plaintiff had sought to challenge the validity of the defendant’s mark, firstly, the defendant must raise a defence under Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant did so, the plaintiff must plead invalidity of the defendant’s mark.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that where the defendant had raised a defence under Section 30(2)(e) of the Act, then the Court had to satisfy that the plaintiff’s plea regarding invalidity of the defendant’s trade mark was prima facie tenable and if the Court was satisfied, then Section 124(1)(ii)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> would have to follow. Thereafter, the Court would frame issue related to invalidity of the defendant’s mark and adjourn the suit by three months to enable the plaintiff to initiate rectification proceedings against the defendant’s mark.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court opined that in the present case, it had to be examined that whether the defendant had raised a defence under Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and if it had, whether the plaintiff had questioned the validity of the defendant’s mark by raising a prima facie tenable challenge.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that in the present case, the challenge in the plaint was entirely to the validity of the ‘FAB!O’ mark of the defendant and also, against any ‘confusing or deceptively similar’ mark. However, the Court opined that if the plaintiff desired to question the validity of the mark ‘FABIO’, then as per Section 124(1)(b)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the plaintiff had to specifically challenge that mark. The Court by straining its interpretative faculties could not read into the plaint a plea that the registration of the defendant’s mark was invalid, where no such plea was actually made in the plaint.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the defendant had raised a defence under Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> on the registration of the mark ‘FABIO’. The Court agreed with the defendant’s stand, where it had contended that the defendant had sought to plead that the trade mark ‘FABIO’ was merely a phonetic equivalent of the trade mark ‘FAB!O’ and registration of the mark ‘FABIO’ entitled the defendant to use the mark ‘FAB!O’. Thus, the Court opined that the defendant had raised a defence under Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, predicated on the registration of the mark FABIO.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the plaintiff had not questioned the validity of the mark FABIO or raised any prima facie tenable challenge in that regard. There was no averment, anywhere in the plaint that the defendant’s ‘FABIO’ mark was invalid and no ground of such invalidity found place anywhere in the plaint.<\/p>\n

The Court further opined that the plaintiff’s reservation to challenge the defendant’s ‘FABIO’ marks meant absolutely nothing, as it was not the prerogative of the party to reserve rights which were not available to it. The Court opined that a party could only seek Court’s permission to reserve its right to urge a challenge at a later point of time and for that such rights must be in existence at the time when the plea was made or should be foreseeable as arising in the future. The Court opined that the right should exist before it could be reserved by anyone and by merely challenging the validity of the defendant’s FABIO mark, such right could not come into existence. Further, even if such right to reservation was accepted, it was impossible for the Court on the basis of plaint and replication to satisfy itself that a prima facie tenable challenge to the validity of the defendant’s ‘FABIO’ mark was raised by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that when no ground existed in questioning the validity of the defendant’s ‘FABIO’ mark in the plaint, the Court could not arrive at any conclusion as to whether the challenge to the defendant’s FABIO mark was prima facie tenable or not.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the plaintiff challenged the mark ‘FAB!O’ of the defendant as infringing in nature and the defendant did not hold any specific registration of the mark ‘FAB!O’. The defendant had pleaded a defense under Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> on the registration of the mark ‘FABIO’ and as the defendant had raised its Section 30(2)(e) defence on the registration of the mark ‘FABIO’, the plaintiff was entitled under Section 124(1)(b)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> to challenge the validity of the said mark and since ‘FABIO’ was not the subject matter of challenge in the plaint could not inhibit the plaintiff from doing so.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy<\/span> v. Gautam Tank<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5589<\/a> and opined that since the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark ‘FABIO’ in favour of the defendant or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and accordingly, dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

The matter would next be listed on 10-01-2024.<\/p>\n

[Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7074<\/a>, decided on 03-11-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgement authored by Justice C. Hari Shankar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

For the Plaintiff<\/span>: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Nancy Roy, Aastha Kakkar, Yashi Agarwal and Abhinav Bhalla, Advocate;<\/p>\n

For the Defendant<\/span>: J. Sai Deepak, Bikash Ghorai, N.K. Bhardwaj, Anju Agrawal, Rahul Maratha, Abhishek and Avinash Kumar Sharma, Advocate<\/p>\n

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

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

“A party can only seek permission from a Court to reserve its rights to urge a challenge at a later point of time. For that, such rights must be in existence in praesenti, when the plea is made, or should be foreseeable as arising in the future.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":306673,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,57135,62519,62518,2616,52951,4041],"class_list":["post-306644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-rectification-petition","tag-section-124-of-trade-marks-act","tag-specific-challenge","tag-Trade_Mark","tag-trade-marks-act-1999","tag-validity"],"yoast_head":"\nSpecific challenge to validity of mark has to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999: Delhi HC| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.\" \/>\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\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-11-06T12:30:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-10T09:20:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.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=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court\" \/>\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=\"9 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\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Specific challenge to validity of mark has to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999: Delhi HC| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-06T12:30:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-10T09:20:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"rectification petition specific challenge trade mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@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":"Specific challenge to validity of mark has to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.","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\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-11-06T12:30:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-10T09:20:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/","name":"Specific challenge to validity of mark has to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp","datePublished":"2023-11-06T12:30:03+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-10T09:20:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff had not challenged the registration of the mark \u2018FABIO\u2019 or raised any ground of such challenge, the present application of the plaintiff failed and thus, dismissed the petition.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"rectification petition specific challenge trade mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/06\/delhi-hc-specific-challenge-to-validity-of-mark-has-to-be-made-u-s-124-of-trade-marks-act-1999-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Oreo v. Fabio] Specific challenge to validity of mark to be made u\/s 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to ascertain prima facie tenability of challenge: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@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":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/rectification-petition-specific-challenge-trade-mark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252392,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/07\/trade-mark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":306644,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Whether S. 124 of Trade Marks Act provide for stay of action against passing off? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., addressed a suit for trade mark infringement, wherein the Court additionally addressed the scope of Section 124 of Trade Marks Act. Instant petition, petitioner was aggrieved that on account of the fact that his suit, which he had filed against the defendants for infringement\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":[]},{"id":278658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/01\/delhi-high-court-rules-on-the-application-of-s-124-trade-marks-act-1999-and-the-standards-of-pleadings-required-to-satisfy-the-ingredients-of-the-provision\/","url_meta":{"origin":306644,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court rules on the application of S. 124 Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the standards of pleadings required to satisfy the ingredients of the provision","author":"Editor","date":"November 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file rectification\/cancellation petition against registrations of Defendant's trademark \u2018TRAVELXP\u2019 in different classes, Jyoti Singh, J., adjourned the proceedings for a period of three months, to enable the plaintiffs to take appropriate steps, in accordance with\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\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/delhi-hc-restrains-hi-tech-pvt-ltd-from-using-the-marks-hta-or-ars-hta-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":306644,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Hi Tech Private Limited from using the marks HTA or ARS-HTA","author":"Editor","date":"August 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cthere is no requirement, in law, of a mark having to be registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the fact of non-registration is, at best, an extremely weak ground on which user of the mark can be doubted.\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":278897,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/01\/delhi-high-court-directs-registrar-of-trade-marks-to-add-bukhara-mark-to-the-list-of-well-known-trade-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":306644,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court directs Registrar of Trade Marks to add \u2018BUKHARA’ mark to the list of \u2018well-known trade marks’","author":"Editor","date":"December 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case filed by ITC Ltd. seeking protection of the trade mark \u2018BUKHARA', the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. declared \u2018BUKHARA' as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg) read with Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and directed\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":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":306644,"position":4},"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":302043,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/21\/delhi-hc-refuses-restrains-parle-from-using-for-the-bold-campaign-label-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":306644,"position":5},"title":"[PepsiCo v Parle] Delhi High Court refuses to restrain Parle from using ‘For The Bold’ campaign as a label on its ‘B Fizz’ bottle","author":"Editor","date":"September 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe least conspicuous part of Parle\u2019s label is, in fact, the \u201cFor the Bold!\u201d tagline, featuring towards the lower edge of the label. It is only a customer who is particularly searching for the tagline who, therefore, would notice it.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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\/2023\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-114.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-114.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-114.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-114.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306644","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=306644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306644\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/306673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=306644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=306644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=306644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}