THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE COURT WHILE GRANTING THE INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:
The prominent and defining feature of both the plaintiff's and defendant's marks is the Zenith, which distinctly impresses itself upon the average customer's mind, even with imperfect recollection and intelligence. Despite potential differences in overall design and layout between the two marks, confusion cannot be ruled out.
It is essential for the Court to be aware that in today's commercial landscape, changing logos and pictorial representations of marks is a common practice, often used as a market strategy to introduce novelty. Marks that have been in use for extended periods and may have resulted in viewer fatigue are frequently modified or enhanced to generate interest through novelty.
Consequently, the pictorial characteristics of a logo or device mark in this case may hold limited significance. If the defining feature of both marks, such as their names, is the same or confusingly similar, visual distinctness between the marks may not carry much weight when determining infringement.
DISCLAIMER
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.
#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal
=====
