Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Calcutta High Court Pointed Out The Necessary Element For Determining Infringement While Comparing Identical Marks

    Uploaded by

    gbhalla3
    The Calcutta High Court case involved determining whether identical marks used in similar businesses constituted infringement. The Court observed that when analyzing infringement between identical marks, the nature of the businesses using the marks must be considered. The petitioner had been using the mark "Ad Ideas" since 1987 in their business, while the defendant partnership firm, formed in 2015, also operated in the same business field using the near identical mark "View Ad Ideas". The Court held that the petitioner was the prior user of the mark and a prima facie case of infringement had been made based on the deceptive similarity of the marks and businesses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Calcutta High Court Pointed Out The Necessary Element For Determining Infringement While Comparing Identical Marks

    Uploaded by

    gbhalla3
    10 views1 page
    The Calcutta High Court case involved determining whether identical marks used in similar businesses constituted infringement. The Court observed that when analyzing infringement between identical marks, the nature of the businesses using the marks must be considered. The petitioner had been using the mark "Ad Ideas" since 1987 in their business, while the defendant partnership firm, formed in 2015, also operated in the same business field using the near identical mark "View Ad Ideas". The Court held that the petitioner was the prior user of the mark and a prima facie case of infringement had been made based on the deceptive similarity of the marks and businesses.

    Original Description:

    Case Summary

    Original Title

    CCB_Sep 30

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Calcutta High Court case involved determining whether identical marks used in similar businesses constituted infringement. The Court observed that when analyzing infringement between identical marks, the nature of the businesses using the marks must be considered. The petitioner had been using the mark "Ad Ideas" since 1987 in their business, while the defendant partnership firm, formed in 2015, also operated in the same business field using the near identical mark "View Ad Ideas". The Court held that the petitioner was the prior user of the mark and a prima facie case of infringement had been made based on the deceptive similarity of the marks and businesses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    Calcutta High Court Pointed Out The Necessary Element For Determining Infringement While Comparing Identical Marks

    Uploaded by

    gbhalla3
    The Calcutta High Court case involved determining whether identical marks used in similar businesses constituted infringement. The Court observed that when analyzing infringement between identical marks, the nature of the businesses using the marks must be considered. The petitioner had been using the mark "Ad Ideas" since 1987 in their business, while the defendant partnership firm, formed in 2015, also operated in the same business field using the near identical mark "View Ad Ideas". The Court held that the petitioner was the prior user of the mark and a prima facie case of infringement had been made based on the deceptive similarity of the marks and businesses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Calcutta High Court pointed out the necessary element for determining infringement

    while comparing identical marks


    In AD Ideas Private Limited v View AD Ideas and Ors., GA 1878 of 2019 with CS 132 of 2019,
    the Hon’ble Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court observed that while analysing whether
    there is infringement or not by usage of identical marks, the businesses under the respective
    marks ought to be considered.
    The petitioner company argued that it had been using the mark ‘Ad Ideas’ through its director
    since 1987.
    Defendant No.1 is a Limited Liability Partnership firm - ‘View Ad Ideas’ and Defendant Nos.
    2 and 3 are the partners of the said firm. The defendants were engaged in the same kind of
    business as that of the petitioners. The petitioner argued that they came to know from an
    internet search that Defendant No.1 partnership firm was incorporated on September 16, 2015.
    The petitioner argued that use of the mark by the defendants amounts to infringement, passing-
    off and unfair competition. The petitioner further argued that both the parties are using their
    mark ‘View Ad Ideas’ in such a manner imitating the style of writing and background such that
    it would cause confusion in the minds of the customers and common traders that the defendants'
    and the petitioners business concerns are identical.
    The Court observed that the petitioner is the prior adopter and user of the mark. While
    comparing the two marks, the Court observed that “A mark is said to be infringed by another
    trade if, even without using the whole of it, the latter uses one or more of its "essential features".
    The identification of an essential feature depends partly on the Court's own judgment and
    partly on the burden of the evidence that is placed before it. Ascertainment of an essential
    feature is not to be ocular test alone. It is impossible to exclude consideration of the sound
    words forming part or the whole of the trade mark which has been infringed.”
    The Court went on to observe that “In order to establish infringement of a trade mark, it is not
    necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to establish that the defendant has been using identical
    mark. What is necessary is to consider if the mark used by the defendant in his business is
    deceptively similar with that of the plaintiff's.” The Court held that a prima facie case has been
    made out against the defendant and awarded an ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy