Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Plaintiff, Wow Momo made out prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff.
“Even if two device marks are visually completely dissimilar, and if their textual components are deceptively similar to each other, then visual dissimilarities between marks, owing to “added matter”, pale into insignificance, where infringement is concerned.”
“That defendants have chosen to imitate the manner in which plaintiff prints its logo is itself testimony to the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff, in the perception of defendant itself.”
“The mark, the name, and the overall look and feel of the website gave a clear impression that defendants are making a deliberate attempt to imitate and copy plaintiffs name/mark ‘NYKAA’ only to gain monetarily by such deception.”
“The plaintiffs have a family of marks all of which use the “TAK” suffix; therefore, the “TAK” suffix has become a source identifier of the marks of the plaintiffs and is, thus, the dominant part of the mark.”
“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.”
“The logo and style of writing of the mark ‘SHERRIN’ having been designed in Australia by Russell Corp Australia (P) Ltd., several years prior to the application filed by Ashok Mahajan, trading as Deal International, is also liable to be protected under the law of copyright.”
“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.”
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 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 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.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH, a subsidiary of ACCELL Group filed a suit against Imperial Cycle Manufacturing Company for seeking permanent injunction restraining them from committing acts of trademark infringement and passing off with respect to the Swiss Bike’s mark ‘RALEIGH’ which was used for bicycles/cycles/bikes.
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 application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of marks, passing off and unfair competition
Delhi High Court: While deciding a case in which an appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Senior