Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
When an application is submitted for registration of a mark which involves a word, then, even at the preliminary stage, a word mark search as well as a phonetic search shall be conducted, so that the possible marks which are phonetically similar to the mark applied for, are thrown up as suggested result.
Delhi High Court observed that the defendant has used the infringing mark ‘BETNOL’, which is identical to the plaintiff’s mark ‘BETNESOL’ with the intent to springboard its business by drawing association with the plaintiff and its trademark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the mark of the plaintiff.
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 Plaintiff is aggrieved by a video circulating on Facebook pages containing disparaging remarks against the product of the Plaintiff i.e., edible oil bearing the registered trademark “MAHAKOSH”.
The use of ‘VIVANTA VACATION CLUB' as a part of a trade name will likely deceive unwary consumers of their association with the mark ‘VIVANTA' as a domain name can have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
In the instant case clips and stills from the film ‘Jawan’ were already available on the internet over various platforms, though no license to broadcast or transmit any part of the film has, to date, been granted by the plaintiff to any entity.
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 observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”
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 granted permanent injunction to SanDisk LLC for its trade mark ‘SanDisk’ and ‘Cruzer blade’. Additionally, Rs. 5 lakhs were awarded as damages.
The use of the word MONK in most prominent manner shows dishonest intention on the part of the Defendant.
Delhi High Court observed that no issue regarding the validity of the registrations of trademarks of the plaintiff is liable to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Delhi High Court opined that ‘NOVAEGIS’ was, phonetically identical to ‘NOVARTIS’, when tested from the point of view of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and thus, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of ‘NOVARTIS’.
Google LLC’s download warning in respect of all third-party applications was a mere disclaimer and there was no case made out for trade mark infringement.
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 Delhi High Court directed the proprietor of a small shop to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, failing which he would suffer incarceration in civil prison for a week as he violated the order of interim injunction passed earlier by the Court and continued to sell counterfeited products of louis Vuitton.
The Delhi High Court held that “SCHEZWAN CHUTENY” was a mere descriptive term and therefore, Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. could not be stopped from using the same and the Court further held that if protection was granted to the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, then similar protection should also be granted to ‘Tamarind Chutney' or ‘Tomato Chutney', as they were also combinations of words in “English and Hindi”.
The plaintiff contended that the impugned platforms contained various features, such as the audio extraction feature, which are beyond the limited role of an intermediary specified under Section 79 (2)(a) of the IT Act, thereby disentitling the defendant from the 'safe-harbour' protection guaranteed to intermediaries under the IT Act.