Trademark Rectification of the basis of genericness of Mark
Plaintiff's Claim:
The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit claiming that the defendant infringed on their proprietary rights associated with the trademark "CONSOLETTE."
Injunction Request:
As part of their lawsuit, the plaintiff sought an injunction, a legal order to prevent the defendant from using a similar trademark, "CONSOLE."
Defendant's Response:
In response to the lawsuit and injunction request, the defendant filed for trademark rectification. This means they challenged the validity of the plaintiff's trademark "CONSOLETTE." One of the grounds for this challenge was that the word "CONSOLE" is common in trade, meaning it's a generic term used widely across the industry.
Evidence Submitted:
The defendant presented documents to support their argument that the term "CONSOLE" is indeed common to trade, likely showing examples of other businesses or products using similar terms.
Trademark Rectification Granted:
Based on the evidence provided by the defendant and the argument that "CONSOLE" is a common term in the industry, the court or relevant authority decided to rectify the plaintiff's trademark. This means they declared the trademark invalid or altered its registration in some way.
Injunction Declined:
With the plaintiff's trademark being rectified or invalidated, the basis for the injunction against the defendant's use of "CONSOLE" no longer stood. Consequently, the request for an injunction was declined by the court or relevant authority.
Concluding Note:
The defendant successfully argued that the plaintiff's trademark was invalid because it contained a term ("CONSOLE") commonly used in the trade. This resulted in the trademark being rectified and the plaintiff's request for an injunction being denied.
Case Title: The SMT Gramophone Co Ltd. Vs Etonisa Gramphone Limited
Case Citation: 1931 (48) RPC 309
Name of Court: Chancery Division
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Lord Tomlin
Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney,
Ph No: 9990389539
