Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that physicians, doctors, and chemists are knowledgeable in their field, however they are not infallible, and in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products there cannot be any leeway for mistakes, since even a possibility of a mistake may prove fatal to the consumers.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
“there 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.”
“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.”
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.
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 held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.