Infringement of Trademark

• SAME MARK
• DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR
• CONFUSION
• LAKME v. SUBHAS TRADING – ‘LIKE ME AND LAKME’
COLGATE PALMOLIVE V. ANCHOR HEALTH AND
BEAUTY CARE LTD
• LIKEHOOD OF CONFUSION
• TRADE DRESS WAS CONSIDERED
J AND P COATS V. CHADHA AND CO
• ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE MARKS WILL BE REMEMBERED
• MAIN IDEA LEFT ON THE MIND OF THE CONSUMER
SBL LTD V. HIMALAYA DRUG CO
• MANNER OF TRADE
• CLASS OF PURCHASERS
• NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE A WORD THAT IS COMMON
TEST
• VISUAL TEST
• OCULAR TEST
• LAY CONSUMER TEST
FERRARI AUTOMOBILE COURSE V. MCBURNIE
NON USE
USE BY KEEPING THE CARS AT ROAD AND RESALE WAS ALLOWED
POP FOODS V, KELOOGS CO
KELOGS REGISTERED THE WORD POP IN 1941 AND YET TO USE IT
22 YEARS HAVE PASSED
if the Indian Company has genuinely adopted the mark and developed the
product and is first in the market then its Trademark should be recognised. Thus,
the ultimate test should be who is first in the market
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. V.
HARINDER KOHLI
cognoscente can easily discern the distinction between the Punjabi comedy movie
and the English novel and an illiterate can never draw a link between the two.
Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine allows for finding of liability where a plaintiff can
demonstrate that a consumer was confused by a defendant’s conduct at the time of
interest in a product or service, even if that initial confusion is corrected by the time
of purchase
MYSPACE V SUPER CASSETTES
The court held that MySpace would not be liable for infringing acts occurring on its
website unless it had ‘actual knowledge’ of the infringing act from the rights holder,
which is indicative of an intention to facilitate or contribute to the infringement, and
failed to expeditiously remove such infringing content
Read with Section 79 of the IT Act
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V. RECKITT
BENCKISER INDIA LIMITED
• telecast of an advertisement that disparaged Dettol’s reputation and brand name
in a commercial for Lifebouy soap.
• The TVC showed liquid of the same colour being poured from a bottle similar in
shape to a Dettol bottle, producing a milky effect.
a) A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be the best in the world, even
though the declaration is untrue.
b) He can state that his goods are better than his competitors.
c) He can even compare the advantages of the two goods. He, however, cannot, while
saying that his goods are better than his competitor’s, say that his competitor’s
goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors and
their goods, which is not permissible in law.
AMUL V. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD
•An advertisement (TVC1) that compared Amul’s “icecream” with other
“frozen desserts.
•HUL, being the market leader of products in the frozen desserts category at
51.3%, took issue with this depiction that frozen desserts contain
‘vanaspati/vanaspati tel’ – which is admittedly bad for health
• The court held that “the content, intent, manner and storyline of the
impugned TVCs seen as a whole, convey a false, untruthful, malicious and
negative message” thereby disparaging “the entire category of products known
as Frozen Desserts of which the Plaintiff is a market leader” and “also
disparaging the products manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff and adversely
affecting the business of the Plaintiff
NEWS KIDS ON THE BLOCK V. NEWS AMERICA
PUBLISHING
•incidental use of a mark, merely as a reference would not qualify as trademark
infringement.
•the product must be one not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark
•only so much of the mark may be used as to reasonably identify the product and
•the user must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the
trademark holder.
TATA V. TURTLE CASE
RELIEFS
• INJUNCTION FOR DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS
• PRESERVING OF THE INFRINGING GOODS
• RESTRAINING HIM FROM DISPOSING OF THE GOODS
JOHN DOE ORDER
SAN DISK CASE
JOHN DOE ORDER AS THE INFRINGORS
COULD NOT BE NAMED
The Court granted by appointing three Local Commissioners to

seize and take into possession the counterfeit memory cards bearing the
plaintiff’s SanDisk word and logo marks and/or the Red Frame logo with or
without the product packaging
MAST- JAGERMEISTER V. TAMIL NADU POLICE
WRIT FILED AGAINST THE TAMIL NADU POLICE
DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE’ CAMPAIGN POSTER BY THE TAMIL
NADU POLICE
TN POLICE AGREED TO REMOVE THE LOGO
• NO DAMAGES IF THE DEFENDANT COULD PROVE THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE
TM BEING REGISTERED OR USED AND ONCE AWARE HE CEASED TO USE
IMMEDIATELY
CRIMINAL REMEDIES
• SECTION 102- 109
• APPLYING FALSE MARKS , TRADE DESCRIPTION
• SELLING GOODS TO WHICH FALSE TRADEMARK IS APPLIED

Infringement of Trademark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infringement of Trademark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infringement of Trademark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

• SAME MARK

The Court granted by appointing three Local Commissioners to

You might also like

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