Category: Trademark

ISSUE:

Whether there are similarities between the two contended marks and do they create confusion

Whether the Defendant's mark violates the copyright of the Plaintiff?

Whether there was a misuse of confidential information or not?

RULE:

The Principle of Confidentiality, ensued in Article 21 of the Constitution under the Right to Privacy, and under the Information Technology Act 2000, states that when information is disclosed to a third party or used without the data owner's permission, he is entitled to take legal action on the account of loss or damage incurred as a result of the same.

Section 51 and Section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957 also state that an idea is not protected by a copyright, it only becomes a copyright when the idea is embodied in a tangible form.

ISSUE:

Whether the mark “DICLOMOL” being used by the Plaintiff and “DICAMOL” being used by the Defendant, for the manufacture of their products, are so similar that confusion is likely to be created amongst consumers, the public and those who are dealing with the Plaintiff Company?

Whether the Plaintiffs have a legal right to prevent the Defendants from using the mark “DICAMOL” to carry on their business, manufacturing, and marketing of the product?

RULE:

Rules 1 & 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower Courts to grant an injunction on the basis that it is just and convenient to do so to prevent injury or breach from arising, and Rule 2 specifically lays down the conditions that must be fulfilled; a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or injury.

ISSUE:

Whether the applicant's use of the trademark "TATA," even with evidence of use since 1981, is an honest concurrent user or an attempt to trespass on the petitioner's well-established mark, "THE HOUSE OF TATAS"?

Is the rejection of the petitioner's evidence based on a lack of pleading on the registered status of the "TATA" trademark, as well as the failure to consider a prior court order against respondent No. 2, a fair basis for dismissing the opposition to the trademark registration?

RULE:

To be eligible for registration, a trademark must not be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and it must not be a colourable imitation of an existing brand. Evidence of repute and earlier use can be important elements in assessing whether or not a trademark registration should be permitted. Furthermore, when evaluating opposition to trademark registration, it is critical to evaluate the legitimacy of any concerns stated, even if they are not explicitly pled, and not to discard pertinent evidence without adequate justification.

ISSUE:

Whether is it trademark infringement when an Internet search engine recommends and sells a trademark to advertisers, including the trademark owner's competitors, for the purpose of triggering the appearance of their adverts and links?

Whether an Internet search engine's use of a trademark qualifies as a "use in commerce" under the Lanham Act, even if the trademark is not visibly displayed in the search results but is used to suggest and sell keywords to advertisers, potentially leading to consumer confusion?

RULE:

A trademark owner may have a valid cause of action for trademark infringement when the owner of an Internet search engine recommends and sells the trademark to advertisers, including the trademark owner's competitors, to trigger the appearance of their advertisements and links, causing potential consumer confusion when users search using the trademark as a keyword.

ISSUE:

Whether the Defendant's use of the contended trademark as its own misguides the public, and can be considered as passing off?

RULE:

The principle of trademark protection, in lieu of Section 29 of the Trademarks Act 1999 holds that protection cannot be granted when the adopted trademark is not dealing in the domain of goods as the other party's trademark is.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. established that a single colour can be registered as a trademark under the Lanham Act, how has this precedent influenced later colour trademark registrations?

Whether the functionality concept, as established by the Court in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., constitutes a firm bar to registering a single colour as a trademark, or whether it is conditional on the specific circumstances and the impact of colour on product functionality?

RULE:

A single colour can potentially meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act if it has developed secondary meaning in the market, demonstrating that it meets the primary purpose of trademarks by identifying the source of a particular good. The functionality concept does not preclude the registration of colour as a trademark unless the colour is necessary to the use or purpose of the product or has a major impact on its cost or quality.

ISSUE:

Whether Michael Doughney's registration and use of "peta.org" for his website constituted trademark infringement, despite the fact that he did not sell any products or services?

Whether Michael Doughney correct in claiming that his website, "People Eating Tasty Animals" (peta.org), was a permissible parody under the First Amendment's free expression rights?

RULE:

When assessing whether a domain name constitutes trademark infringement and whether a website qualifies for protection as a parody under the First Amendment, the court should evaluate whether the domain name or website suggests ownership by the trademark holder and simultaneously communicates that it is a humorous imitation. The possibility of user misunderstanding among users seeking the real trademark holder's website is an important factor in evaluating trademark infringement.

ISSUE:

Whether the Defendant's use of the contended mark intended to deceive or cheat the public?

RULE:

For the actions of the defendants to be deceptive a substantial portion of the public must likely to be deceived by such actions, i.e. misled by the product “ Spanish Champagne”.

ISSUE:

Whether the use of the Plaintiff’s logos, marks and images by the Defendants is protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000?

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief, if yes, in what terms?

RULE:

The Inwood Test, laid out in the case of Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inv. (1982) is applied primarily to merchants and original producers of goods to monitor and control the instrumentality of infringements. The crux of the Test lies in the general knowledge or awareness that a service is being used in order to sell counterfeit goods.

ISSUE:

Whether BB and AB were entitled to use the name "Budweiser"?

Whether the exercise of the judge's discretion under s12(2) can be impugned?

Whether the Court of Appeal decision has disposed of AB's Section 11 objection to BB's application?

Whether the Court ought to exercise the discretion conferred by Section 12(2) in favour of BB?

RULE:

The use of the same trademark by two different companies may not be considered trademark infringement if the two companies' products are marketed to different segments of the population and if the two companies have different reputations.