Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is not what meaning is being assigned by the words chosen by the appellant, but the determining factor is whether it is deceptively similar.”
“Well settled principles for assessing the deceptive similarity lays emphasis on visual appearance as well as the phonetic similarity i.e. that the marks have to be judged by the eye as well as the ear.”
“The Defendants shall each pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs as costs to the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks from today.”
“Both the restaurants are premium restaurants which would obviously cater to a distinct well informed and well-educated consumer base and the likelihood of confusion is bleak in such cases.”
The Court opined that a party seeking interim injunction in a passing-off action must produce concrete evidence of use, goodwill, and business turnover.
Compiling key judgments from High Courts across India, this roundup presents November’s significant developments in copyright, trade mark, trade dress, and personality rights, reflecting evolving trends in IP protection and enforcement.
Bringing together the most important IPR decisions from High Courts across India, this roundup offers an overview of October’s major developments in copyright, trade mark, and personality rights, along with notable updates from related legal domains.
“The plaintiff’s registered trade mark and artistic work is infringed by the defendants, and it is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public, thus, unless ad-interim reliefs are granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, harm, and injury.”
The Court found that the respondents’ label is a near replica of the appellant’s trademark and design, including the “Swastik” symbol, which has been consistently used by Rajani Products since 1983.
The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant’s and respondent’s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.
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.
The defendant was broadcasting on a YouTube Channel, as well as publishing a newspaper in the name of “AAJTAK WATCH”, through the State of Gujarat.
The Calcutta High Court stated that Trademark dilution protects well-known trademarks from losing their appeal when used in connection with diverse and dissimilar products or services.
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.
Delhi High Court observed that the composite mark CHINA BISTRO cannot be said to be lacking in distinctiveness, when seen as a whole, in the absence of any evidence or material to that effect led by Wow Momo Foods Limited.
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.
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.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed seeking permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off against Ms.
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.