Whether the Defendant's use of the contended mark intended to deceive or cheat the public?
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”.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Whether or not the action for passing off is maintainable against the registered proprietor of a trademark by the respondents who are not the registered proprietors of the 'whirlpool' trademark concerning washing machines?
Whether or not the respondent acquired a transborder reputation?
Whether such transborder reputation transcends territorial boundaries or not?
The doctrine of transborder reputation recognizes that a trademark can acquire goodwill in a country even if it is not used or registered in that country. This is because consumers in one country may be aware of a trademark from another country through advertising, international trade, or other means.
The issue here was whether fonts fit the definition of ‘artistic work’ as provided for under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and whether they can therefore be registered for copyright under the same act.
Fonts/typefaces are not artistic works under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This means that fonts/typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in India.
Whether Greenpeace's use of Tata’s Trademark and logo was a parody or an infringement?
The use of a registered trademark for the purpose of criticism or protest is not trademark infringement, provided that the use is fair and bona fide.
Whether Prius Auto is guilty of passing off their products through the "Prius" trademark, thereby harming Toyota's market reputation?
Use of a registered trademark for a product or service that is not similar to the goods or services for which the trademark is registered is not trademark infringement.
Does trademark dilution by blurring occur under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 where a famous and distinctive mark is parodied, but the mark is only mimicked and not actually used?
Trademark Dilution gives the owner of a well-known trademark the right to prevent others from using the mark in a way that would decrease its distinctiveness.
Trademark dilution by blurring does not occur under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 where a famous and distinctive mark is parodied, but the mark is only mimicked and not actually used.
Is there a likelihood of confusion between the parties' jeans?
Whether summary judgment for the trademark owner is appropriate on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition?
The principle of "likelihood of confusion" refers to the likelihood that consumers would confuse and mistake your mark for the mark of another company.
There are eight factors used in determining the likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods:
The strength of the mark
The degree of similarity of the marks
The proximity of the products
Bridging the gap
If the trademark owner intends to enter the alleged infringer’s market, it would lead to future confusion.
Actual confusion
The junior user’s good faith in adopting the mark
The quality of the respective goods
The sophistication of relevant buyers
Whether the process of modification of whitening of almonds by Plaintiff was an invention?
Sub-section (e) of Section 3 provides that, a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance is not considered as an invention unless the functional interaction between the features of the components achieves a combined technical effect which is greater than the sum of the technical effects of the individual features.