Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi rejected registration of a device mark in Class 39 on ground, subject trademark is laudatory and objectionable in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999. Counsel appearing on behalf of NRI Taxi Service Ltd. correctly places reliance on Mohd. Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., […]Read more "Laudatory"
Only one Academy Award has ever been revoked in history of Oscars. ‘Young Americans’ won for Best Documentary in 1969. It was discovered, ‘Young Americans’ had played in a theater in October, 1967. Oscar was handed over to ‘Journey Into Self’. _____ 03.10.1980 – Chhabirani was gang-raped… 23.04.2002 – We are satisfied, present case is a […]Read more "Chhabirani"
‘SUBERB’ is not phonetically similar to ‘SUBWAY’. ‘Sub’, when used in context of sandwiches, is an abbreviation for ‘Submarine’, which represents a well-known variety of long-bodied sandwiches. Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Bikas, 1975 CarswellOnt 1001-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Emma Foods, 1976 CarswellOnt 1006-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Haralambos Voultsos, 1977 CarswellOnt 1041 testifies to commonality of […]Read more "Submarine"
The Trademarks Act, 1999 Section 2(1)(za)(iv): ‘trade description’ means any description/statement/indication, direct or indirect, as to country in which goods were made/produced/provided. Section 2(1)(i)(I): ‘false trade description’ means a ‘trade description’ which is untrue or misleading in a material respect as regards goods to which it is applied. Section 9(2)(a): a mark shall not be […]Read more "Swiss Military"
‘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"
Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Court Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]Read more "Quia Timet III"
My Lord, Allegations in Plaint are Sufficient? No. In assessing whether a quia timet plaint can be rejected outright [Order 7, Rule 11], Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Natco Pharma Limited, (2014) 212 DLT 321 cautions, a quia timet action must not be speculative, merely alleging without factual basis. The statement of claim must allege […]Read more "Quia Timet II / The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VII"
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"
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., subsequent proprietor of the trade mark ‘FORZEST’, prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark ‘FOLZEST’. DWD Pharmaceuticals asserted, Sun Pharmaceutical obtained above ad-interim ex-parte injunction by concealing various material facts. DWD Pharmaceuticals is a registered proprietor of ‘ZEST Family of Marks’ since 1983. […]Read more "Family of Marks"
The enactment of The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 resulted in abolishing of Intellectual Property Appellate Board. All matters pending before IPAB stood transferred to High Courts. High Courts having territorial jurisdiction in respect of Revocation Petitions under Section 64 have to be determined on basis of where cause of action arises. The cause of action […]Read more "Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 II"
Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd.,  RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA,  EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
Plaintiff’s grievance, pithily placed, is, Defendant has in a brazen and blatant manner copied Plaintiff’s registered trademark: ‘FLY HIGH’. Plaintiff has no exclusive right to use the word ‘HIGH’ which, as brought out by Defendant, is a fact concealed by Plaintiff. Defendant is right in stating, ‘FLY HIGHER’ is only used in conjunction with its […]Read more "Fly High, Higher"
Settlement entered into between Plaintiff and TIME Inc. [22.04.2004, CS(OS) 1389/2003] has no relevance in present suit for infringement and passing off. Settlement Agreement cannot jettison phonetic similarity of marks qua a third party in another matter. ‘T.I.M.E.’ and ‘TIMES’ are phonetically identical. Letters in ‘T.I.M.E.’ are separated with dots. This is a trivial dissimilarity […]Read more "T.I.M.E. v. Times"
Learned Single Judge has dealt with arguments and contentions raised by SOOTHE and has rightly reached a prima facie conclusion, DABUR’s mark does not infringe SOOTHE’s trademark and DABUR is not passing off its goods as those of SOOTHE. As rightly argued by DABUR and decided by Learned Single Judge, ‘SUPER’ is descriptive and laudatory. […]Read more "Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ"
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,  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"