Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The registration of the plaintiff’s mark in the year 1972, prima facie, granted an exclusive right to the plaintiff to use it, which was infringed when the defendants used the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR.”
This article explains the concept of personality rights and how a surge in celebrity lawsuits is reshaping the law on identity, privacy, and digital misuse in India.
The defendants were engaged in providing taxi services across Dehradun and Delhi and were marketing themselves as an inter-state national level service, using the name ‘JIO’.
“Asha Bhosle has the right to control the use of all facets of her personality since the same formed part of her exclusive Personality Rights and the misappropriation of the same without her consent was liable to be restrained not only on the basis of the publicity rights but also on the basis of the tort of dilution, more particularly, tarnishment.”
“Where two persons may be registered proprietors of marks, which are identical or deceptively similar to each other, neither person would be allowed to interfere with the exclusive right of the other person to use the mark, though each of them would have a right of injunction against a third party, who may not be a registered proprietor of the mark.”
“The infraction of the rights of the appellant can take place in various shapes like dilution of its mark, initial interest confusion, and actual confusion.”
“When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or authorization, it may not only lead to commercial detriment to the concerned individual but also impact their right to live with dignity.”
This order is in line with the 9-9-2025 order favoring Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who had filed a similar petition seeking identical reliefs.
“Relevant consumer base for the products which are deodorizers, air purifiers etc would be an average educated class with the ability to differentiate between the rival marks especially when there is no resemblance apart from a phonetic similarity between the two when viewed as a whole.”
“It is clear that whilst selling counterfeit products, these listings display marks/trademarks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s trade marks and constituting an act of passing off as well.
The Defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were associated with Premji Invest so as to scam them into illegal and fraudulent investments.
The products in the present case are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, that are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion.
“The actions of defendant 1 are misleading unsuspecting customers, resulting in them sharing their confidential information and spending their hard-earned money on these infringing platforms. It is evident that defendant 1 are trying to create the impression that their websites, Social Media Groups, are associated with INDmoney”
“The combination of the two words “RAM” and “BANDHU” is a coined word and arbitrary adaption being totally unconnected with the goods marketed under the trade mark, gives rise to claim for exclusivity.”
“The defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trade mark cannot be said to be an honest adoption as though having a registered trade mark, the defendant deviated from the mark and adopted a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark.”
The use of colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow of the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s mark.
Around December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO that the defendant commenced use of the name METBRANDS and until that time, the defendant was operating and offering goods and services under the name ‘METRENDS’.
The defendant’s contention that the expression “1K PUR” is common to trade or publici juris, was rejected and the Court opined that a party asserting that a word/expression has become common to trade must satisfy the test of extensive, actual, and continuous use of such an expression in the market.
The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.
Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive/leading/memorable/essential feature).