Trade Marks have long been a long-fought battle through and through the Indian justice system. In the year 2021, we have some significant cases that came to the forefront that have been discussed below.
- – Decided by Delhi High Court on 1st September 2021
The plaintiff herein had been using the trademark “Rajdhani” for food products, condiments, confectionery, etc., having originally conceived and adopted it when they started their business. In due course of their business, they came across the defendants on social media, whereby the former discovered that the latter was engaged in the business of marketing Indian spices, under the name of “Rajdhani Masale Co.” and “New Rajdhani Masala Co.” Deeming it as a gross violation of their rights guaranteed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiff filed a suit as well as an interim application seeking an injunction against Defendants’ use of the impugned trademarks/best trademark lawyers in Delhi this was opposed by the defendants on the ground of being a ‘prior user’ and the significant delay on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court.
The Delhi High Court heard both parties keeping in mind the aforementioned grounds, and observed that the Plaintiff was the prior user and registered owner of the trademark and was ‘first in the market’ to use it. Moreover, while comparing the Court noted that the Defendants’ trademarks were deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademark, use of which would further infringe Plaintiff’s rights, and that mere delay per se was not sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff of interim relief. The plaintiff was granted the reliefs that they sought from the Court.
- – Decided by Bombay High Court on 23rd August 2021
The case revolved around the web series ‘Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta story,’ which aired on SonyLIV App. The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank (KUCB) first filed an FIR against Sony Pictures Network, alleging defamation and trademark infringement. It was stated therein that in the third episode of the web series, a logo displayed in the background resembled the Bank’s trademark, causing severe damage to its financial, commercial, and social reputation. The accused party then filed two writ petitions seeking a stay on investigations on three grounds –
i. That, according to Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, no official below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police could conduct an investigation, however, the said FIR was being probed by a police inspector.
ii. That the alleged offense under Section 500 of the IPC was non-cognizable, hence the police could not conduct an investigation based on an FIR.
iii. That the web series did not fall under the purview of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, citing the Prateek Chandragupt Goyal vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. case in which the same court found that the mere use of a trademark in an item does not constitute a false application/copyright lawyers in Delhi.
Convinced by all three grounds the Bombay High Court stayed the investigations until the next date of hearing.
- M/S PRABA’S V CARE HEALTH CLINIC v. M/S I-CARE AESTHETIC CLINIC – Decided by Madras High Court on 29th July 2021
This was a disagreement between an employer and an ex-employee. The plaintiff in the case registered the trademark ‘V Care,’ which was granted registration with the caveat that ‘Care’ will not be protected. With the mark ‘I Care,’ the defendant in the lawsuit developed a competitive company with incomparable goods/services relevant to personal and health care. The plaintiff filed an infringement suit, which the Court rejected summarily/Trademark registration lawyers in Ludhiana
The Court ultimately determined that the marks are distinct and that there is no chance of misunderstanding between the two. It was stated that the word ‘care’ is public Juris; hence, using the word in a trademark will not result in liability.
No comments yet.