Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are affiliated with plaintiff.
The Court stated that the mala fide intent of Defendants 7 and 8, is evident from their infringing activity of selling counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trade mark with the sole objective of capitalizing on the immense goodwill and brand image enjoyed by the plaintiff.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs’ RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant’s justification for adopting the mark ‘RAMADA’ is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.
The plaintiffs submitted that the confusingly similar trade mark in the field of pharmaceuticals, create greater injury as compared to products and services in other fields.
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
It was said that when a mark as distinctive and well-known as “Adidas” is copied, it can dilute the mark’s distinctiveness and harm the brand’s reputation, irrespective of the differences in the product categories.
The brand ‘Peter England’ was introduced in 1997 and later acquired by Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2000.
Since the rival trade marks were visually and phonetically identical, it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists.
“Invoices issued by the defendant have also been procured which exhibit that they are selling products not only in their store under the name of “FAB INDIA EMPORIUM” but they are also selling their products under the same tradename.”
“When consumers encounter different products with similar branding in the same retail context, the risk of assuming a common source or affiliation increases.”
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands who may predecease them is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime.”
“Even after the termination of their contractual relationship and the explicit withdrawal of rights to use the plaintiff’s trademarks and logos, defendants have unauthorisedly continued use of their deceptively similar marks.”
“Once the provisions of the Forest Act, 1927 have not been challenged and are valid, the operation of the same cannot be ignored.”
“When damages have been paid for unlawful use of land then plaintiff, being a wrong doer, cannot claim equitable relief for wrongful use of such land, in respect of which he has no right, title, interest.”
Sterling Agro Industries emerges victorious in the trademark clash between NOVA and NOVYA, as Delhi High Court decrees in their favor, enforcing a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarding litigation costs.
“Defendants are based out of India and are taking shelter under the technological tools to stay away from the Court, while continuing to operate the platform.”
“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.”
“Proceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature while an injunction suit filed by the respondent is a regular suit.”