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"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"‘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"Plaintiffs allege infringement by Defendant of their Registered Design No. 306577 which was the subject matter of Diageo Brands B.V. v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2350 [‘Great Galleon’] as well. Senior Advocate, Amit Sibal points out, Section 22 of The Designs Act, 2000 identifies ‘obvious’ and ‘fraudulent’ imitation as the test. […]
Read more "Design Piracy / No Bottle, Just Bottle II"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"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"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"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"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"‘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"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"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"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"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"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"Estonia-based-Plaintiff submits, Defendants are using an identical mark ‘BOLT’ with an identical color scheme. Plaintiff: SC has held, when an urgent interim relief is being sought, suit can be filed without resorting to pre-litigation mediation. Defendants: SC has held, with effect from 20.08.2022, pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is […]
Read more "Bolt, Pre-Litigation Mediation"There is a serious dispute on validity of registration of design granted to Plaintiff on 22.04.2016. Defendant, at least prima facie, has been able to rebut presumption of validity of registration. The term ‘proprietor of a new or original design’ is defined in Section 2(j) of The Designs Act, 2000. Plaintiff, being an importer of […]
Read more "Design No. 282812 : LED Surface Light"Plaintiffs claim, lock, stock and barrel copying by Defendant. Defendant labels both Plaintiffs and itself as pirates, sailing in high seas of prior art(s). Hipster Bottles were launched by Plaintiff No. 1 in India in May, 2019. Plaintiff No. 1 is Proprietor of Registered Design No. 306577 in terms of Section 2(1)(j) of The Designs […]
Read more "No Bottle, Just Bottle I"Marico’s grievance pertains to Dabur. It is alleged, impugned advertisements convey a clear message: Marico’s product is ineffective and useless. On behalf of Dabur it is contended, impugned advertisements are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and are legitimate, honest, truthful, well substantiated and statistically proven. A balance has to be struck. An advertiser cannot, while […]
Read more "Comparative Advertising I"A cargo containing fruits and vegetables was sent twice from Mumbai to Canada via London by employing services of British Airways. Those aggrieved against air carriers, are barred, even if accompanied by sufficient cause, to bring an action for damages after 2 years. Our task is to decipher Rule 30 of Second Schedule of […]
Read more "The Plea of Limitation XVIII: Air Carriers"
The Last Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.