Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Due to the fact that the defendant has not contested the matter, but compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit, by not agreeing to give up the infringing mark, despite being put to notice, the plaintiff is entitled to receive actual costs.”
“The comparison of the defendant’s and the plaintiffs’ marks will show that the defendant has not merely copied one mark or packaging but has deliberately adopted a series of marks, in packaging with almost identical colour combinations.”
“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
The defendant, Dhanpreet Singh Trading was restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trade marks or copyrights in respect of the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME'.
“It is intriguing as to why a reputed company such as the defendant company, Wipro Enterprises would launch its product, also pertaining to female reproductive hygiene, almost 22 years later, using the identical trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Co.”
The details of the Grievance Officers in terms of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including the physical and email address shall be published openly for public access on LinkedIn’s website.
The mark having a combination of words and devices had to be considered as a whole for the purposes of grant of registration.
The manner of representation of the label with the defendants’ impugned product, where the unique manner of representation with first letter in black and the rest of the letters in the word in red colour is identical.
The use of ‘NEW BALANCE IMMIGRATION’ as a part of its trade name by New Balance Immigration (P) Ltd. (defendant) is likely to deceive unwary consumers of their association with New Balance Athletics Inc (plaintiff).
The founder of the defendant institutions was not only aware of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in the USA but drew inspiration from the founder of ‘Mayo Clinic’, USA. Thus, the defendants have dishonestly adopted the ‘MAYO’ mark of the plaintiff as they are fully aware of the prior existence and use of the same by the plaintiff.
When an application is submitted for registration of a mark which involves a word, then, even at the preliminary stage, a word mark search as well as a phonetic search shall be conducted, so that the possible marks which are phonetically similar to the mark applied for, are thrown up as suggested result.
So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological terms, be distinctive.
User traffic may be diverted due to the same or similar domain name, which can result in a user mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of the one intended. A domain name might, therefore, have all characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
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.
The use of ‘VIVANTA VACATION CLUB' as a part of a trade name will likely deceive unwary consumers of their association with the mark ‘VIVANTA' as a domain name can have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
In a rectification petition filed by Burger King Co. LLC against a family restaurant, the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the mark ‘BURGER KING’ in Class 43 as it was identical to the well-known mark ‘BURGER KING’ and was likely to deceive public and create confusion.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Google LLC for its mark “GOOGLE” and awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as damages to Google LLC which was to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to SanDisk LLC for its trade mark ‘SanDisk’ and ‘Cruzer blade’. Additionally, Rs. 5 lakhs were awarded as damages.