Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Defendant is free to use the two proposed marks, i.e., 
and 
, so long as the said marks are used in a manner where the words ‘MY’ or ‘मेरी’ are of the same font, colour and size as the word ‘RAASHEE’.”
“The products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices of the products. A consumer who uses such products would be aware of the difference between ‘Lotus Splash’ and plaintiff’s lotus family of products.”
“‘PREMIER’ as used in appellant’s mark is of a completely different font and style and has a small flower device on top of the word. Thus, concluded that there is no deceptive similarity on a bare perusal of the marks.”
“The differences showed that extraordinary effort has been put by defendant in identifying differences and the broad similarities are so obvious at the first look that the differences are nudged into oblivion.”
“Refusal of injunction will be contrary to public interest, as there will be likelihood of confusion, in the public, between the products of defendants and plaintiffs because of similarity of the marks used by them.”
The MANNAT DHABA and MANNAT logo has been registered by the Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited for their Dhabas and eateries, located at Murthal on the Delhi-Chandigarh Highway.
“Use of trade marks as keywords cannot, by any stretch, be construed as applying the registered trade mark to any material intended to be used for labelling or packing goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services.”
The grievance of RSPL Limited is the use of the mark EXPERT and depiction of the partial clock on the detergent packaging of the defendants as also the use of the word expert and use of the elongated X and DX.
“Spa services have a requirement for high quality, best hygiene, safety/security of customers and if unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark ‘ANGSANA’ is permitted to be used, the same will result in severe erosion of its goodwill.”
“The aspect of likelihood of confusion has to be examined from the perspective of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”
“Copying of so many marks, labels, packaging, and containers is a deliberate act on defendants’ behalf to gain monetarily by selling counterfeit products.”
“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.”
“The name, the goods and the class of customers is identical. The Plaintiff was a long prior user of the mark and name ’Emerald’ for valves and the Defendant’s adoption is recent.”
“The infringement conducted by defendant by imitating plaintiff’s mark ‘WOODLAND’ and ‘tree device 
’ has been deliberate and calculated.”
“Defendants are directed to ensure that reference to the mark ‘BACHPAN’, either as a word mark or as a device mark, is removed from all physical and virtual sites on which the mark might be reflected in association with defendants.”
Clause 2.6 of the MOU signed between the parties clearly stipulates that upon termination/determination of this agreement the developer/respondent shall have no right to use any brand/mark associated with the consultants/petitioners, and/or any brand/mark identical or deceptively similar thereto, in relation to Project, expansion or part thereof.
“There is no injunction on Mohalla Tech (P) Ltd. using the cover versions, remixes or user generated content.”
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“In view of pictorial depiction of stag, the “STAG” part of plaintiff’s mark has necessarily to be held to be its essential and dominating feature and the use, by defendant, of word STAG along with pictorial depiction of stag, clearly indicates imitation, by defendant, of essential features of plaintiff’s mark.”
“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.”