Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
“Listings play a crucial role in online marketing and sales. Copying of listings also indicates that defendant is trying to pass off its products as that of plaintiff, in view of the point-of-sale confusion that becomes clearly possible.”
“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.”
“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.”
“While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating any intellectual property rights.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
“There can be no copyright claimed in the Scriptures. However, any adaptations of the said work including providing explanation, summary, meaning, exegesis/interpretation or creating any audio-visual works being transformative works, will be entitled to copyright protection.”
“The plaintiff's mark 
and the defendants' mark 
are composite trade marks, which imply that they are a combination of different elements, and their registration willd not grant an exclusive right in the word ‘d mart'.”
“The defendant is selling honeycomb panels to the Ministry of Defence since 2012 and containers of the defendant cannot be sold without the panel, considering the purpose for which containers are stated to be needed, that too by the Ministry of Defence.”
“There is nothing illegal in seeking out internet users as targets for advertisements that they may find relevant. In brick-and-mortar world, there will be no question of infringement if customers looking for a product are also offered products of rival competitors”.
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.
The term “BHAIYAJI” is a word of common use in certain states of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and which literally translates into the word “brother” and is therefore, of a non-distinctive character.
“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
Delhi High Court observed that the working of the Defendant’s ‘Present and Record’ feature when compared with the Claims would demonstrate that almost all the same steps therein are present in the Defendant’s product, thus, prima facie, establishing infringement.
“A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”
Bombay High Court observed that as the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour, the aspects of the balance of convenience and irreparable loss that the plaintiff may suffer in the absence of interim reliefs, pale into insignificance.
The use of ‘NEW BALANCE IMMIGRATION’ as a part of its trade name by New Balance Immigration (P) Ltd. (defendant) is likely to deceive unwary consumers of their association with New Balance Athletics Inc (plaintiff).
The founder of the defendant institutions was not only aware of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in the USA but drew inspiration from the founder of ‘Mayo Clinic’, USA. Thus, the defendants have dishonestly adopted the ‘MAYO’ mark of the plaintiff as they are fully aware of the prior existence and use of the same by the plaintiff.