Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A payment made for use of goodwill cannot possibly be viewed as being an illegal purpose or one prohibited by law. A person would be obliged to part with consideration for the use of goodwill if it seeks to derive benefit and advantage therefrom.
The impugned film is set to be released on 14-06-2024.
Unfair advantage through conscious adoption of a competitor’s mark leads to potential confusion and deception”
The case arises from the alleged infringement of Eveready’s trademarks by the defendants. Eveready contends that the defendants’ use of the mark “EVERYDAY” for electric gas lighters is deceptively similar to Eveready’s “EVEREADY” trademark.
“There is every likelihood of defendant’s cloud kitchen services being perceived as another extension of plaintiff’s services owing to the nature of the ‘SOCIAL’ series of marks used by plaintiff.”
“Viewed from the perspective of initial impression conveyed by defendant’s mark on the mind of consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, if a court crosses such consumer’s mind as to whether market is not the same as, or associated with, the mark of plaintiff, which is seen earlier in point of time, “likelihood of confusion” and “likelihood of association”, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 necessarily exists.”
Delhi High Court observed that customers are being misled by the defendants and the entire effort is deliberate and dishonest amounting to dilution of the reputation and goodwill of the trademark/logo of the plaintiffs.
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.
The Delhi High Court held that the marks ‘WhiteHat Jr’ and ‘WhiteHat Sr’ were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘WhiteHat Jr’.
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’.
Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name ‘www.dream11.bet’ and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by ITC Ltd. seeking protection of the trade mark ‘BUKHARA', the Single Judge
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Tata Sia Airlines (‘plaintiff') seeking decree of permanent injunction against company selling
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., expressed that, the word ‘SHOLAY’, is the title of an iconic film, and consequently, as
Delhi High Court: In a matter wherein Starbucks trademark ‘frappuccino’ was being infringed, Jyoti Singh, J., while observing that, FRAPPUCCINO trademarks have
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., is considering a very interesting case where the dispute between the parties is regarding the ownership
Patiala House Courts: Preeti Parewa, SCJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, while addressing the alleged case of sexual harassment against the CEO of ScoopWhoop, wherein it
Delhi High Court: While addressing a trademark dispute between Rooh Afza and Dil Afza manufacturers, Asha Menon, J., expressed that, buying a