Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the seven parameters laid in Narendra Hirawat & Co. v. Sholay Media Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1878 for granting interim injunction including the extent of damages, protection of plaintiff’s interest, balance of convenience or inconvenience, etc.
Under section 3(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Raughan-E-Badam Shireen/ Badani Shireen is mentioned as Unani Medicine in the authoritative book of First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
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.
Transliteration is the conversion of a text from one script or alphabet to another, as opposed to translation from one language to another. Shorter Oxford Dictionary 5th Edition defines ‘transliteration' as a noun to mean rendering of letters or characters of one alphabet in those of another.
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”.
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.
In Lulu v. Coolulu trademark dispute, the Karnataka High Court chided the competent authority for not considering the nuances of the dispute properly, which meant that the impugned order did not show even a semblence of application of mind.
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.
Delhi High Court observed that the use of the word ‘ROYAL’ appears to be only in the form of depicting the quality of the rice. The use of the word ‘ZABREEN’ prominently on its packaging is sufficient to take the defendant out of the mischief of infringement and passing off.
Bombay High Court observed that confusion in the case a medicinal or pharmaceutical product may have disastrous effect on the health.
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.
There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.
The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.
The Court observed that Khadi & Village Industries Commission holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.
Considering that the movie was conceptualised and crafted metaphorically around a cooking ingredient that is closely related to its product, Ajinomoto Co Inc has claimed that any negative portrayal would be bound to seriously harm its reputation.
Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and/or passing off the Starbuck’s registered
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of marks, passing off and unfair competition
“Disclaimers do not go to the market and a common man of average intelligence or the average consumer would have no knowledge of any disclaimers present in a trademark registration.”