Comparative Advertising IV

Extolling of one’s positive features is permissible. However, denigration of a rival’s or a competitor’s product is completely impermissible. It would be reading too much into Santoor’s impugned advertisement, in my opinion, to extract from it anything derogatory or deprecating regarding Dettol. It does not even obliquely refer to moisturizing qualities, present or absent, of […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising IV"

Contracts of Insurance VI

Vedic Resorts and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., at West Bengal, had obtained insurance policies. A mob of 200-250, in August, 2009, damaged insured property. During course of investigation it was revealed, Gaffar Mollah after firing and throwing bombs at a Football Match, upon being chased, took shelter in Vedic Resorts. It was submitted, Vedic Resorts had […]

Read more "Contracts of Insurance VI"

Compound Interest

A wide variety of rival submissions have been presented before us on whether Consumer Fora had been justified in awarding and approving ‘compound interest’. An attempt to seek ‘compound interest’ in such real estate dealings did not meet with approval of this Court and in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 […]

Read more "Compound Interest"

Rip Van Winkle Policy

Campus Activewear Limited’s press for relief can only be decided on claim of passing off. On a comparison, it is undeniable, there are structural and phonetic similarities between ‘CAMPUS’ and ‘CAMPS’.     Rama Shankar Garg, sole proprietor of M/s. Baba Footwear, is the registered owner of the mark ‘CAMPS’. ‘CAMPS’ was accorded registration as early as […]

Read more "Rip Van Winkle Policy"

Curse of Biscuit Cases

It is now settled, proprietor of one registered trade mark can sue proprietor of another registered trade mark [Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd., (2014) 60 PTC 51, Corza International v. Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153]. It is trite, Court has to tread cautiously when it has to […]

Read more "Curse of Biscuit Cases"

Sun Stroke in Election Duty

Deval Ravidas-Constable [Shivhar District Force]-Member [Static Armed Force], posted at Booth No. 67-Primary School, Mathura Sultanpur-Police Station: Bidupur-District: Vaishali, died due to a sun stroke/heat stroke while performing election duty for Bihar Legislative Assembly. A proximate causal relationship between an accident and a body injury is necessary [Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, […]

Read more "Sun Stroke in Election Duty"

Comparative Advertising III

‘GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE’ v. ‘DABUR GLUCOPLUS-C ORANGE’   The TV commercial identifies ‘orange glucose’ as ‘product category’. But, is it disparaging in nature? Disparagement is an act of belittling someone’s goods or services with a misleading remark. The TV Commercial does not disparage any ‘orange glucose’ drink. Disparagement cannot be a far-fetched inference. It would […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising III"

Product Configuration Trade Dress

Plaintiffs are manufacturers of containers, used to store food products, sold under the brand name ’Tupperware’. Defendant is also a manufacturer of containers, used for storage of food products, sold under the brand name ‘Signoraware’. Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking remedies in respect of Plaintiffs’ Suit Products [MM Square, Best Lunch Bag and Spice […]

Read more "Product Configuration Trade Dress"

Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu

Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 177 observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to […]

Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"

The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan

Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]

Read more "The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan"

The Doctrine of Blue Pencil

An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"

No Turn

It is evident, Plaintiff has a registered trade mark – ‘NO TURN’. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of this trade mark since 15.01.2008. Defendant is the prior user of the mark since 2007. The use of the mark by Defendant is intermittent and not voluminous so as to establish the defence under Section 34 […]

Read more "No Turn"

One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor

‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc, [1990] 1 All ER 873] – Satisfied. _____ Both parties claim proprietary rights and utilize the mark ‘GeoCrete’ in respect of identical goods. To permit concurrent use, in factual situation noted, would cause public confusion and result in violation […]

Read more "One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor"

Comparative Advertising II

Reckitt states, on 15.03.1979, it registered the word mark ‘HARPIC’. HUL also manufactures and markets a toilet cleaner, which is sold under the trademark ‘DOMEX’. Learned Single Judge declined Reckitt’s prayer to interdict HUL from broadcasting a TV Commercial. It necessary, fair amount of latitude be available to advertisers. There is an element of creativeness […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising II"

Uno Minda v. Minda Uto

Plaintiffs cannot seek a restraint against Defendants from using their registered trademark ‘MINDA UTO’ for Plaintiffs do not have registration for said goods under Class 04 while Defendants do. In view of Section 31 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration of the trademark is prima facie evidence of its validity in favor of Defendants. […]

Read more "Uno Minda v. Minda Uto"

Domain Name III

Learned Single Judge did not agree, Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction. It does not take much in the virtual world to masquerade as somebody else. According to us, principles surrounding territorial jurisdiction, in cases of online trade via internet websites, are fairly well established. Even if a website is not directed at customers in […]

Read more "Domain Name III"

White Lace v. Wild Lake

Plaintiff has ‘WHITE LACE’ gin, ‘WHITE LACE’ vodka et cetera. It is submitted, on account of long, continuous and extensive use of the trade mark ‘WHITE LACE’ in relation to alcoholic beverages, Plaintiff has attained immense goodwill and reputation. It is submitted, Defendant has been selling identical products under the impugned mark: ‘WILD LAKE’.   […]

Read more "White Lace v. Wild Lake"

Star

HTC Corporation v. L.V. Degao, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 953 has held, where there are two registered trademarks, registration of the later trade mark may be refused or cancelled: (i) when deception or confusion results, (ii) there is a dishonest user, (iii) subsequent use is without due cause, (iv) there is bad faith, or (v) […]

Read more "Star"