Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
Upon careful comparison of the plaintiff’s trade dress and that of the defendants, it became apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants’ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff’s trade dress.
The Court held that Moonshine had demonstrated a prima facie case for a grant of injunction, the refusal of which would cause an irreparable loss to it.
The plaintiff averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the registered trade marks has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
Considering the widespread promotional and advertisement activities undertaken by the plaintiff, it is apparent that the trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
The plaintiffs submitted that the confusingly similar trade mark in the field of pharmaceuticals, create greater injury as compared to products and services in other fields.
There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is openly using the subject device mark in the context of its goods in the public domain and the Registrar completely ignored these documents while passing the impugned order.
Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had registered its well-known trade mark “WIPRO” and its formative trade marks in various classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It was said that if no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, Mankind Pharma would suffer an irreparable loss.
Plaintiffs submitted that being the ex-franchisee, Defendant 1 was clearly aware of the ownership and notoriety of the ‘MOTI MAHAL’, ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL’, ‘TANDOORI TRAIL’ and their formative marks as well as the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs related to the said trade marks.
“Petitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.”
It is submitted that Plaintiff 1 is a ‘celebrity’ and has a valid and enforceable personality right. He satisfies the dual test of personality rights, viz. having a valid and enforceable personality right on account of being a well-known reputed personality and the same is clearly identifiable in the infringing content uploaded by Defendants 1-8 and 13 on their social media accounts.
The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word ‘HIRECT’ is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff’s registered mark.
Defendant’s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant’s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark “JHAMPA” on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.
The infringers were restrained from using Skechers’ trade mark and artistic works or any other trade mark or artistic work identical or similar to Skechers, till the next date of hearing.
The adoption of plaintiffs’ trade marks and plaintiffs’ artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by defendants is dishonest.
The trade mark/label mark ‘Girnar’ surpasses the scope of merely encompassing products/services sold or rendered under the said trade mark and the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of plaintiff-Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in its trade mark extended beyond any specific class of goods or services.
Usage of trade mark ‘BURJNOIDA’ was allowed because the residential project had been in construction for the last ten years.
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
The trade mark ‘MONSTER’ had been adopted by Monster Energy Co. in 2002 in the United States of America.