Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Plaintiff’s registered marks are Device Marks and not Word Marks. Hence, no infringement can be brought merely because of the use of the word ‘YATRA’ by the Defendant as ‘YATRA’ is a generic and a descriptive word.”
by Nishant Tripathi* and Akshat Singh**
“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.”
Explore latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) shaping Intellectual Property Laws which covers trademark infringement, patentability, passing off, and domain name disputes. A holistic view of evolving jurisprudence on intellectual property laws in India.
The plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
“Mere use of a mark, even if continued over a period, is not by itself sufficient to establish enforceable rights under trade mark law. It must be shown that the mark, through its use in trade, has acquired a distinct association in the minds of the relevant consumer base with the claimant’s goods.”
The Court stated that Defendants 1,8, 9 and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels.
Despite Respondent 1’s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly/deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
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.
Upon careful comparison of the plaintiff’s trade dress and that of the defendants, it became apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants’ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff’s trade dress.
Considering the widespread promotional and advertisement activities undertaken by the plaintiff, it is apparent that the trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.
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.
There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is openly using the subject device mark in the context of its goods in the public domain and the Registrar completely ignored these documents while passing the impugned order.
Plaintiffs submitted that being the ex-franchisee, Defendant 1 was clearly aware of the ownership and notoriety of the ‘MOTI MAHAL’, ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL’, ‘TANDOORI TRAIL’ and their formative marks as well as the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs related to the said trade marks.
“Petitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.”
The trade mark/label mark ‘Girnar’ surpasses the scope of merely encompassing products/services sold or rendered under the said trade mark and the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of plaintiff-Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in its trade mark extended beyond any specific class of goods or services.
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
The Trade Mark Registry allowed the Form TM-24 Applications of the Electronica Hitech Machines Tools Private Limited for bringing on record their name as the subsequent proprietor. Electronica India Limited challenged the said purported order.