Order Date:04.08.2022
Case No. FAO OS (Comm) 169 of 2022
Delhi High Court
Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, H.J.
Mr. L.V.Degao Vs HTC Corporation
Respondent's Trademark: The subject matter Trademark of the Appellant involved was HTC.
Respondent's Goods: Smartphones, mobile phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, virtual reality head mounted displays, etc.
Appellant's Trade mark: The subject matter impugned Trademark of the Appellant was HTC
Goods of Appellant: Electric hair trimmers, hair clippers and hair dryers
Appellant was the Defendant and Respondent was the Plaintiff in the subject matter suit.
The present Appeal was filed against grant of injunction by the Hon'ble Single Judge against the Appellant.
The Appellant applied for trademark HTC in different font. But using in the identical lettering style as that of the Respondent.
Appellant has no explanation for this.
The Appellant changed the lettering style of Trademark HTC and started to use the Trademark, as applied for by them.
However , no relief was granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench as the explanation given by the Appellant for adoption of impugned Trademark was held not to be plausible.
The Appellant was held to be dishonest adopter of the Trademark HTC.
More over the Hon'ble Division Bench was also of the view that because of impugned Trademark HTC by the Appellant in relation to Electric hair trimmers, hair clippers and hair dryers would also create confusion and deception in the minds of customer and product of Appellant and product of Respondent namely Smartphones, mobile phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, virtual reality head mounted displays, etc. are sold under the same shop.
The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly restrained the Respondent from using the impugned Trademark HTC in relation to Electric hair trimmers, hair clippers and hair dryers.
Accordingly Appeal was Dismissed.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment