{"id":336231,"date":"2024-11-29T17:00:51","date_gmt":"2024-11-29T11:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=336231"},"modified":"2024-12-04T17:13:34","modified_gmt":"2024-12-04T11:43:34","slug":"bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In the present case, applicant sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing applicant’s registered trade marks, i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned mark ‘DESIMOCHI’ and\/or any other marks identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark of applicant. Further, relief was sought to refrain defendants from passing off defendants’ goods\/services as those of applicant’s and for ancillary reliefs.<\/p>\n

A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., granted temporary order and injunction, restraining defendants, from in any manner whatsoever infringing applicant’s registered trade marks i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned marks and\/or any other mark identical and\/or deceptively similar to the said registered marks of applicant. The Court further declared that the registered mark of applicant ‘MOCHI’ was a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the 1999 Act’).<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

Applicant was a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> and was one of the largest Indian footwear and accessories specialty retailers and were among the aspirational Indian brands in the footwear categories. Applicant was in the business of, trading, marketing, distribution, sale, import, of shoes, footwear, boots, sandals, slippers, socks, non-slipping devices for boots and shoes, soles for footwear, belts (clothing), heels and heel protectors for shoes, tips for footwear, welts for footwear, also pocket wallets, key cases, imitation leather, handbags, bags, attaché bags, briefcases, pouches of leather, leather unworked or semi-worked and accessories.<\/p>\n

Applicant was the owner and registered user of the ‘MOCHI’ marks and had been in extensive use of the same since 1977, as a result of which, the ‘MOCHI’ marks had become well-known among members of the public in India and globally as markers\/identifiers exclusively associated with applicant’s business and brand. Applicant stated that around December 2016, it began operation of a website under the domain name “www.mochishoes.com”, incorporating ‘MOCHI’ mark\/brand as an essential and central feature. Applicant’s goods and services under ‘MOCHI’ marks were advertised, promoted, and sold through Flipkart, Amazon, Myntra, Tata CLiQ, Nykaa Fashion, Ajio, etc. Applicant had secured registration of the word mark ‘MOCHI’ in classes 18, 25, and 35, among other ‘MOCHI’ marks in the same classes.<\/p>\n

Applicant, around August 2022, come to know about the existence of a website, “www.desimochi.com” (‘impugned website’) that sold footwear and applicant stated that defendants were not only using the impugned website to sell their goods but were also selling footwear using the impugned mark, ‘DESIMOCHI’. The impugned marks were ex-facie identical and\/or deceptively similar to applicant’s ‘MOCHI’ marks and were being used in relation to goods and services, identical with and\/or similar to those of applicant.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court opined that applicant established that it had secured registration of the ‘MOCHI’ word marks in Classes 18, 25, and 35 with a user claim since 1977. The Court stated that prima facie<\/span>, applicant had established there had been open, continuous, and extensive use of the said ‘MOCHI’ mark which had become well-known among members of the public in India and globally as markers\/identifiers exclusively associated with applicant’s business and brand.<\/p>\n

The Court rejected Defendant 1’s contention that its website was a shoe aggregator platform selling various brands and that Defendant 2 had acquired the domain name ‘DESIMOCHI’ in 2017 and permitted Defendant 1 to use the domain ‘DESIMOCHI’. The Court opined that dishonesty in adoption was to be presumed once defendant was deemed to have notice of applicant’s mark by virtue of the same being on the register and was under an obligation to undertake a search of public domain registries\/sources.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Bal Pharma Ltd.<\/span> v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1176<\/a> and Merck KgaA<\/span> v. Natco Pharma Ltd.<\/span>, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2331<\/a>, and opined that defendants’ use of their impugned mark DESIMOCHI’ was clearly after applicant’s use of its registered mark ‘MOCHI which was since inception from 1977.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that defendants’ contention that applicant’s registration was conditional was also misconceived as applicant’s subsequent registrations of the mark ‘MOCHI’ were without any condition and not derivative of the first application and therefore, would not suffer the same condition as imposed initially presuming that the condition was in any manner disclaimer of the word ‘MOCHI. The Court opined that the two registrations which were conditional were for device marks and the condition mentioned therein i.e., “‘Registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the letter ‘M’ and other descriptive matter” was with respect to \"\"<\/a> and there was no disclaimer in so far as use of the word ‘MOCHI’ was concerned.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that rival marks were required to be considered as a whole, including the disclaimed matters while deciding the question of actionable similarity\/infringement. Every trade mark registration was separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration could not be read or imported into another.<\/p>\n

The Court agreed with applicant’s contention that third party application and\/or their status had no bearing on the present case and merely, because third party application was refused registration for the mark ‘MOCHI’, it did not in any manner effect the registrations of applicant of their mark ‘MOCHI’ word marks in Classes 18, 25, and 35 with user claim since 1977, amongst other variants of the ‘MOCHI’ marks.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that there was presumption of distinctiveness once applicants’ mark ‘MOCHI’ had been registered. The Court stated that defendant had itself applied for registration of the mark ‘DESIMOCHI’ which contained the entirety of applicant’s mark ‘MOCHI’ and would therefore be estopped from contending that applicant’s mark was generic, descriptive, or common to the trade.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that applicant held valid and enforceable rights to the mark ‘MOCHI’, including exclusive rights to prevent others from using the same or confusingly similar marks in relation to footwear. Further, even pre-fixing ‘MOCHI’ with ‘DESI’ triggered an association and business connection with applicant’s mark and was likely to be interpreted by an ordinary member of the public and those also in trade to mean that the goods were associated with applicant’s brand ‘MOCHI’ which was one of the largest and most reputed brands in the footwear industry. Thus, the Court opined that prima facie<\/span>, ‘DESIMOCHI’ would suggest that it was the Indian brand of applicant’s mark ‘MOCHI’.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that WIPO’s decision dated 23-01-2024 stating that applicant had not been able to establish that there was bad faith on the part of defendants in adopting their domain name which contained the word ‘MOCHI’ was incorrect. The Court stated that the WIPO’s decision failed to consider that if it was found that a deceptively similar mark or domain name which was being used with respect to identical goods and services, then a case for infringement of trade mark was made out because such usage would inevitably lead to confusion. The Court also stated that the existence of bad faith per se was not required to secure an infringement order for a registered trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Court thus held that applicant made out a strong prima facie<\/span> case for grant of injunction for infringement and passing off. The Court stated that the balance of convenience was also in favour of applicant as it had abled to establish that it was a user of the registered mark since 1977, which was open, continuous, and extensive use. Hence, non-grant of injunction against a rank infringer such as defendants would result in applicant being made to suffer irreparable loss and harm. The Court further declared that the registered mark of applicant ‘MOCHI’ was a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the 1999 Act.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court granted temporary order and injunction, restraining defendants, from in any manner whatsoever infringing applicant’s registered trade marks i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned marks and\/or any other mark identical and\/or deceptively similar to the said registered marks of applicant.<\/p>\n

[Metro Brands Ltd. v. Nice Shoes LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3647<\/a>, decided on 18-11-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

For the Applicant\/Plaintiff:<\/span> Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan and Alhan Kayser i\/b. Avesh Kayser for the Applicant\/Plaintiff.<\/p>\n

For the Defendants:<\/span> Raj Dani, i\/b. Jyoti Pandey for the Defendants.<\/p>\n

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

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

Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive\/leading\/memorable\/essential feature).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,75766,62142,71616,59531,75764,75765,14722,75767,36088,46158,42104,53281],"class_list":["post-336231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-desimochi","tag-footwear","tag-justice-r-i-chagla","tag-mark","tag-metro-brands-ltd","tag-mochi","tag-passing-off","tag-section-21zg","tag-temporary-injunction","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-trade-marks-act","tag-well-known-mark"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark 'MOCHI' against mark 'DESIMOCHI'; declares 'MOCHI' as a well-known mark | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.\" \/>\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\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-11-29T11:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-04T11:43:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\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=\"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark\" \/>\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=\"7 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\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark 'MOCHI' against mark 'DESIMOCHI'; declares 'MOCHI' as a well-known mark | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-29T11:30:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-04T11:43:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark\"}]},{\"@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":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark 'MOCHI' against mark 'DESIMOCHI'; declares 'MOCHI' as a well-known mark | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.","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\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark","og_description":"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-29T11:30:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-04T11:43:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","name":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark 'MOCHI' against mark 'DESIMOCHI'; declares 'MOCHI' as a well-known mark | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-11-29T11:30:51+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-04T11:43:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Bombay High Court granted temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for its mark 'MOCHI' against Nice Shoes LLP's mark 'DESIMOCHI' and declared 'MOCHI' as a well-known trade mark.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark"}]},{"@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\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":347795,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/15\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-metro-brands-for-mark-metro-restrains-use-of-mark-metbrands\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":0},"title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands for mark \u2018Metro\u2019; restrains MetBrands (P) Ltd. from using mark \u2018MetBrands\u2019","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Around December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO that the defendant commenced use of the name METBRANDS and until that time, the defendant was operating and offering goods and services under the name \u2018METRENDS\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338384,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":1},"title":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year","author":"Editor","date":"January 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Discover the year's most impactful IPR cases, including landmark decisions on copyright infringements, trademark conflicts, patent disputes, and more, shaping the future of intellectual property law.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 IPR cases","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-campa-in-trade-mark-infringement-case-against-jhampa\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":2},"title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to mark \u201cCAMPA\u201d in a trade mark infringement case against \u201cJHAMPA\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Defendant\u2019s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant\u2019s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark \u201cJHAMPA\u201d on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369957,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/bom-hc-restrains-fedex-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":3},"title":"S. 159(5) provide no shield against infringement of well-known trademark; Bombay High Court restrains use of “FEDEX” as corporate name","author":"Ritu","date":"December 16, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhere explanation for adoption of the mark is not honest and there are two different versions with different reasons and which reasons themselves are not proved, such explanation should be disregarded on the principle that things speaks for themselves.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"FEDEX trademark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/FEDEX-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/FEDEX-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/FEDEX-trademark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/FEDEX-trademark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/04\/legal-roundup-ipr-november-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":4},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025: Key IPR rulings of the Month","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Compiling key judgments from High Courts across India, this roundup presents November\u2019s significant developments in copyright, trade mark, trade dress, and personality rights, reflecting evolving trends in IP protection and enforcement.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336471,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","url_meta":{"origin":336231,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark","author":"Simranjeet","date":"December 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and\/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word \u2018HIRECT\u2019 is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff\u2019s registered mark.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336231","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=336231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336231\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=336231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=336231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=336231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}