Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court observed that no issue regarding the validity of the registrations of trademarks of the plaintiff is liable to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi High Court observed that the use of the word ‘ROYAL’ appears to be only in the form of depicting the quality of the rice. The use of the word ‘ZABREEN’ prominently on its packaging is sufficient to take the defendant out of the mischief of infringement and passing off.
Bombay High Court observed that confusion in the case a medicinal or pharmaceutical product may have disastrous effect on the health.
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 the test of —initial interest confusion.
There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.
The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.
The Court observed that Khadi & Village Industries Commission holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.
Considering that the movie was conceptualised and crafted metaphorically around a cooking ingredient that is closely related to its product, Ajinomoto Co Inc has claimed that any negative portrayal would be bound to seriously harm its reputation.
Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and/or passing off the Starbuck’s registered
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of marks, passing off and unfair competition
“Disclaimers do not go to the market and a common man of average intelligence or the average consumer would have no knowledge of any disclaimers present in a trademark registration.”
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Oravel Stays Limited doing business as OYO Rooms (plaintiff) is seeking damages
Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file rectification/cancellation petition against registrations of Defendant’s
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed seeking permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off against Ms.
Madras High Court: In a Trade mark dispute between digital payments applications “Phone Pe” and “Mobile Pe”, M. Sundar, J has temporarily
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off,
The trademark RAJNIGANDHA has been declared as a well-known mark by this Court and is entitled to a high degree of protection. The impugned mark is visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark.