Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When consumers encounter different products with similar branding in the same retail context, the risk of assuming a common source or affiliation increases.”
Defendant earlier using the mark “Ashirvad by Aliaxis” and adopting “ARTISTRY” only after plaintiff’s “ARTIZE” mark gained repute, prima facie, shows that there is a conscious attempt to ride on plaintiff’s reputation.
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.
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.
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 advertisements on the Facebook page and YouTube channel alone, in my prima facie opinion, cannot be sufficient to deny the plaintiff its statutory rights as a registered proprietor of the mark.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Sunshine Tea House Pvt Ltd. (‘plaintiff’) for its brand CHAAYOS was seeking permanent injunction
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J., while deciding a regular first appeal, upheld the decision