Upkarma Ayurveda Vs Rasayanam Enterprises

Passing Off in Relation to Similar Background Colour of Product Packaging

Introduction:

The doctrine of passing off is a vital aspect of intellectual property law, primarily aimed at protecting the goodwill and reputation of a business. This legal principle prevents one party from misrepresenting their goods or services as those of another, thereby misleading consumers. A recent case that highlights this doctrine involves the plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, and the defendant, Rasayanam, focusing on the similarity in the background colour of their product packaging. The case underscores the significance of trade dress and the potential for consumer confusion arising from similar packaging designs.

Case Background:

The plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, holds a registered device mark for "UPAKARMA AYURVEDA PURE SHILAJIT." The plaintiff's grievance centers on the defendant's use of the mark "RASAYANAM PURE SHILAJIT," specifically the similarity in the background colour of the packaging. The defendant, during the pendency of the proceedings, obtained registration for their device mark "RASAYANAM" (Registration No. 4591737 in Class 5) on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The crux of the plaintiff's complaint was not the usage of the word mark "RASAYANAM" but rather the defendant's use of a similar trade dress, which included a similar background colour.

The Importance of Background Colour:

In this case, the court emphasized the importance of background colour in the packaging of consumer products. The background colour plays a crucial role in consumer perception, particularly when products are stacked side by side on supermarket or shop shelves. An average consumer, with imperfect or hazy recollection, might be deceived into picking one product over another due to the similarity in background colours, thus falling within the realm of passing off.

The plaintiff contended that their product's packaging, which used a light beige/skin colour (Hex: FCE7CC), was adopted prior to the defendant's use of a similar shade. The defendant argued that their packaging used a light green colour, dark shade (Hex: F0E8B7). While technically different, the court acknowledged that the colour shades were similar enough to cause confusion at a casual glance.

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis focused on several key aspects:

Consumer Confusion:

The primary concern was the likelihood of consumer confusion due to the similar background colours. The court noted that the similarity in packaging could mislead consumers, particularly those with imperfect recollection, into believing the products originated from the same source.

Trade Dress and Deceptive Similarity:

The court examined the overall trade dress of the products, including the background colour, and concluded that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. This similarity, combined with the identical nature of the products, increased the potential for consumer confusion.

Injunction and Remedies:

The court observed that the defendant had introduced a new packaging for their 10gm product with a distinctive dark brown colour, which the plaintiff did not contest. This indicated that the defendant could use different packaging without infringing on the plaintiff's trade dress. The insistence on using a beige or similar background for the 20gm product was deemed unnecessary and likely to cause confusion.

Conclusion:

The court ultimately granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, restraining the defendant, Rasayanam, from using the similar background colour in their product packaging. This case underscores the significance of trade dress in protecting the goodwill and reputation of a business. It highlights the importance of distinctive packaging in preventing consumer confusion and upholding the principles of fair competition.

In essence, the case reiterates that even subtle similarities in packaging, such as background colour, can lead to passing off claims if they create a likelihood of consumer confusion. Businesses must be vigilant in designing their product packaging to ensure it is distinctive and does not infringe on the trade dress of others. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the complexities involved in intellectual property law and the need for careful consideration of all elements that contribute to a product's identity in the marketplace.

Case Citation: Upkarma Ayurveda Vs Rasayanam Enterprises: 22.03.2024: CS COM 834 of 2024 : 2024:DHC:2374:Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Srmb Srijan Private Limited Vs Uma Shankar Jaiswal

Trade Mark Infringement in Relation to Pattern of a Product

Background:

The case in question involves a well-known company engaged in the manufacturing, selling, and distribution of construction materials, including Thermo-Mechanically Treated (TMT) bars. This company, the plaintiff, has been producing TMT bars with a distinctive “X-ribs” surface pattern since 2001, a feature that has become synonymous with their brand.

The plaintiff holds several registered trademarks, including the wordmark "X-RIBS" (registration No. 1304153, dated August 20, 2004) and the SRMB 3-D Device mark featuring the “X-ribs” pattern (registration dated September 20, 2020). These registrations confer exclusive rights to use these marks on their products.

In January 2020, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was manufacturing, selling, and advertising TMT bars with an identical or deceptively similar “X-ribs” pattern. This led to the filing of a trademark infringement suit, alleging that the defendant was unlawfully using the plaintiff's registered marks.

Legal Analysis:

The central issue in this case is the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s registered pattern trademarks by the defendant. Trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, potentially leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the original trademark's value.

Plaintiff's Argument:

The plaintiff argued that they have acquired common law rights to the “X-RIBS” pattern/trademark/trade dress through extensive use since 2001. These rights, coupled with their registered trademarks, grant them exclusive rights to use the “X-ribs” pattern on their TMT bars. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s use of the identical “X-ribs” pattern was intended to mislead consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff, thereby capitalizing on the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The plaintiff further argued that the defendant’s actions constituted a deliberate attempt to pass off their TMT bars as those of the plaintiff. This misrepresentation could deceive the general public and harm the plaintiff’s reputation and business interests.

Court's Findings:

The court conducted a comparative analysis of the marks used by both parties. It was evident that the defendant had cleverly used the pattern trademark “X-Ribs” in a manner that closely mimicked the plaintiff’s registered pattern mark. The court noted that the plaintiff had established common law rights to the “X-Ribs” pattern through continuous and extensive use, further solidifying their claim to exclusive use of the mark.

The court held that the defendant’s use of the “X-ribs” pattern on their TMT bars constituted trademark infringement under Section 29(4) (a), (b), and (c) of the Trade Marks Act. These sections address the unauthorized use of a registered trademark in a way that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or association with the registered owner’s goods or services.

The court observed that the defendant’s actions were likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the defendant’s TMT bars were either produced by the plaintiff or were a variant of the plaintiff’s products. This misrepresentation was deemed a deliberate attempt to appropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. In light of the evidence presented, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The court ruled that the defendant’s use of the “X-ribs” pattern infringed upon the plaintiff’s registered pattern trademarks and was likely to cause confusion and deception among the general public.

Conclusion:

The plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate long-term use and registration of the “X-Ribs” pattern was crucial in securing a favorable judgment. It also highlights the courts' role in enforcing trademark rights and deterring infringing activities that exploit established goodwill. This decision reinforces the principle that trademarks, including distinctive product patterns, are vital assets deserving robust legal protection.

Case Citation: Srmb Srijan Private Limited Vs Uma Shankar Jaiswal: 25.06.2024: CS-COM 224 of 2024 : Calcutta High Court: Krishna Rao, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Mob No.:+91-9990389539

West Bengal Chemical Industries Vs Gtz India Pvt Ltd

Lack of Expert Testimony Comparing Defendant's Product with Patent

Background:

The petitioner, in this case, holds patents that protect their inventions related to Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), an iron replacement therapy. The patents in question are IN370845, granted for a process of preparing Ferric Carboxymaltose, and IN434424, an improved version of the initial invention aimed at reducing side effects cost-effectively. Despite these protections, the petitioner alleges that the respondent has infringed on these patents by adopting a similar process for the preparation of FCM, which is claimed to be both dishonest and a direct violation of the petitioner's intellectual property rights. The Court declined the relief of interim injunction to the petitioner on the ground of inter alia lack Expert Opinion Comparing Defendant's Product with Patent.

Case Details:

The petitioner's invention, protected under patent No. IN370845, is a method for preparing Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner also applied for and was granted a new patent, No. 434424, on June 13, 2023, for an improved version of FCM that purportedly has fewer side effects and is more cost-effective. The advantages of these inventions, as claimed by the petitioner, include lower toxicity compared to other iron replacement therapies.

The infringement suit was filed on the grounds that the respondents had adopted a process for preparing Ferric Carboxymaltose and its improved version, which is identical to the petitioner’s patented process, thus violating patents IN370845 and IN434424.

Respondent's Contention:

The respondent contended that Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) is not a novel product. They argued that FCM is a known iron complex, consisting of a ferric hydroxide core stabilized by a carbohydrate shell, and that this has been unequivocally acknowledged by the petitioner in their written submission dated June 16, 2021. The respondent further argued that any product claim based on Ferric Carboxymaltose lacks novelty, as it is a known compound, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any patent right or monopoly over it.

Court's Observations:

The Hon'ble Court evaluated both of the plaintiff's patents. The first patent, IN370845, relates to an improved process for preparing Ferric Carboxymaltose. The second patent, IN434424, pertains to an improved version of FCM with reduced side effects, obtained cost-effectively.

The Court observed that the petitioners are purportedly producing and selling generic Ferric Carboxymaltose, a compound that is well-known and identifiable by its CAS number 9007-72-1, as disclosed by the National Library of Medicines data. The petitioner's statutory declarations under Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970, and Rule 131 under Form 27 for the financial year 2020-2021 stated that the patented invention had not been worked for further research and development to scale it commercially. Similarly, for the financial year 2022-2023, it was not worked due to an "ongoing marketing strategy."

A critical point in the court's decision was the lack of expert opinion comparing the defendant's product with the patented inventions. The petitioner did not produce any evidence from a scientist or technical expert to demonstrate that the defendant's process was identical to or infringed upon the patented process. This absence of expert testimony significantly weakened the petitioner's case.

Legal Analysis:

The crux of the issue lies in the absence of expert evidence. Patent infringement cases often hinge on detailed technical comparisons between the patented invention and the alleged infringing product. Without expert testimony, it is challenging to establish that the defendant's process infringes on the patented process, particularly when the product in question is a known compound like Ferric Carboxymaltose.

The petitioner's failure to provide scientific evidence or a technical expert's opinion to substantiate their claims left the court with insufficient grounds to grant an interim injunction. The court's decision underscores the importance of expert analysis in patent infringement cases, especially when the product involved is a known chemical compound with established characteristics.

Conclusion:

The case highlights a fundamental aspect of patent law: the necessity of expert testimony in establishing infringement. The court's ruling emphasizes that without detailed, expert-driven comparisons, claims of patent infringement, particularly involving known compounds, are likely to falter. The petitioner's inability to provide such evidence led to the dismissal of their request for an interim injunction, underscoring the critical role of expert opinion in patent litigation.

The lack of expert opinion comparing the defendant's product with the patented invention was a decisive factor in this case. It serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required to prove patent infringement and the essential role of technical expertise in supporting such claims.

Case Citation: West Bengal Chemical Industries Vs Gtz India Pvt Ltd. :25.06.2024: CS-COM 513 of 2024 : Calcutta High Court: Krishna Rao, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

V M Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Requirement of Prior Permission of Registrar of Trademarks under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.21775 of 2022, registered for offenses under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. The core issue revolves around the necessity of obtaining prior permission under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before lodging a complaint under Sections 103, 104, or 105 of the same Act.

Case Background:

The petitioner argues that the complaint was registered without the necessary prior permission from a police officer of a rank not below the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), as required by Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner references a similar case, Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, decided by a co-ordinate bench on 28-02-2019, which supports this argument.

Legal Provisions:

*Sections 103, 104, and 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

These sections address offenses related to trademark infringement, falsifying and falsely applying trademarks, and related fraudulent activities.

Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

This section mandates that a police officer not below the rank of DSP must be convinced that an offense under Sections 103, 104, or 105 has been committed or is likely to be committed. Only then may such an officer search and seize goods without a warrant, provided they first obtain the opinion of the Registrar on the facts involved in the offense relating to the trademark and adhere to that opinion.

Legal Issue:

The primary legal issue is whether the prior permission of the Registrar of Trademarks under Section 115(4) is mandatory before lodging a complaint under Sections 103, 104, or 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner asserts that the complaint and subsequent proceedings are unlawful as they were initiated without the required prior permission under Section 115(4). They cite the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, where a similar issue was adjudicated.

Relevant Precedent:

The petitioner relies on the findings of the co-ordinate bench in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, which held:

"A police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, if he is satisfied that an offense under sections 103, 104, or 105 has been committed or is likely to be committed, may search and seize goods, dye, block, machine, plate etc., without warrant. In this case, the search and seizure was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police contrary to the mandate. Thus, the mandatory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, have not been complied with. Therefore, registration of the FIR and consequent investigation are vitiated."

In this precedent, the court quashed the complaint due to non-compliance with Section 115(4), emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates.

Court’s Observation:

The court, in quashing the proceedings in the current case, observed:

"In view of the aforementioned finding by the co-ordinate bench, the subject matter complaint is quashed. It is clear that without obtaining prior permission as required under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation are vitiated. Therefore, in light of the issue already being answered, and given that no permission was taken or granted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petition deserves to succeed."

Analysis:

Mandatory Compliance:

The requirement under Section 115(4) is explicit and mandatory. Any action, such as search and seizure related to trademark offenses under Sections 103, 104, or 105, must be preceded by the satisfaction and authorization of a DSP-level officer.

*Precedent and Consistency:*

The court’s reliance on the precedent established in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016 ensures consistency in legal interpretation and application. This case reinforces the principle that statutory mandates must be strictly followed to avoid procedural invalidity.

Quashing of Proceedings:

The quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.21775 of 2022 aligns with the legal requirement of prior permission, underscoring the importance of adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the legitimacy of legal actions.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioner underscores the critical importance of obtaining prior permission under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before lodging complaints under Sections 103, 104, or 105. This decision emphasizes the necessity of following procedural mandates to ensure the validity and legitimacy of legal actions.

Case Citation: V M Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka :19.06.2024: CRL.P.No. 2080 of 2023: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru: M.Nagaprasanna, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Trademarks

Trademarks with similar meanings are likely to confuse consumers

Introduction:

The present appeal, filed under Section 91(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenges the order dated 22nd July 2023, by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant opposed the registration of a trademark application No. 1411841 in Class 30, filed by the respondent, which was ultimately permitted to proceed. The appellant claims that the respondent's mark is deceptively similar to its own, leading to consumer confusion.

Case Background:

The appellant, an exporter of bulk and packaged tea, has been using the trademark "JUMBO" and "FIVE JUMBO" since 1985, with a distinctive device of an elephant. The appellant's "JUMBO" mark was registered on 8th February 1989, for tea and spices, with additional registrations on 11th September 2006. The striking features of these marks include the picture of five elephants and the word "JUMBO," indicating the source of the appellant's products.

The respondent applied for the registration of a mark in Class 30, featuring an elephant and the word "HAATHI" on 6th January 2006, claiming usage since 1970. The appellant contested this application, alleging it was deceptively similar to their own mark and adopted in bad faith.

Legal Issues:

The central issue is whether the respondent's mark "HAATHI," which means "elephant" in Hindi, and the appellant's mark "JUMBO," another term for elephant, are deceptively similar. The appellant argues that the use of an elephant device and the word "HAATHI" by the respondent creates confusion among consumers due to the visual and conceptual similarities with their own "JUMBO" marks.

Analysis:

Similarity in Meaning:

The appellant’s "JUMBO" and respondent's "HAATHI" both signify an elephant. Despite being in different languages, the semantic equivalence can lead to confusion. Consumers may associate both marks with the same source due to the synonymous nature of "JUMBO" and "HAATHI."

Visual Similarity:

Both trademarks incorporate the device of an elephant. The appellant’s mark features five elephants and the word "JUMBO," while the respondent’s mark includes an elephant and the word "HAATHI." The visual representation of elephants in both marks enhances the likelihood of consumer confusion, especially given the common association of elephants with strength and size.

Goodwill and Prior Use:

The appellant has been using the "JUMBO" mark since 1985, establishing significant goodwill and consumer recognition. The respondent claims usage of "HAATHI" since 1970; however, the court noted a lack of supporting documentation for this claim, undermining the credibility of the respondent’s assertion.

Registrar's Decision:

The Registrar of Trade Marks initially allowed the respondent's mark to proceed, disregarding the appellant’s evidence and assertions. The court found this decision to be flawed, highlighting the failure to properly consider the appellant’s documents and the unsubstantiated acceptance of the respondent's claimed usage since 1970.

Consumer Confusion:

The concept of consumer confusion is pivotal in trademark disputes. The use of similar devices and synonymous words in trademarks can mislead consumers regarding the origin of the products. The appellant's long-standing use and established recognition of the "JUMBO" mark further strengthen the argument that the respondent's "HAATHI" mark could cause confusion.

Conclusion:

In light of the above analysis, the court quashed the Registrar's order dated 22nd July 2023, and revoked the registration of the respondent's mark No. 1411841 in Class 30. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering both visual and semantic similarities in trademark disputes, particularly when these similarities are likely to confuse consumers about the origin of goods.

Implications:

This case reinforces the principle that trademarks with similar meanings can lead to consumer confusion, necessitating careful scrutiny by trademark authorities. The decision also highlights the need for substantial evidence when claiming historical use of a trademark. For businesses, it underscores the importance of ensuring their marks are distinct and non-deceptive to avoid legal challenges and potential revocation.

Case Citation: Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Trademarks :18.06.2024: IPDTMA No. 80 of 2023: Calcutta High Court: Krishna Rao , H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Ltd. Vs Mahipal Jain and Ors

When Intent to Confuse Exists, Trademark Similarities Take Precedence Over Dissimilarities

Introduction:

The legal landscape of trademark law hinges on the protection of brand identity and the prevention of consumer confusion. This principle is particularly evident when examining cases where intent to confuse is apparent. Courts emphasize trademark similarities over dissimilarities in such scenarios to uphold the integrity of original marks and prevent unfair competition. This article delves into a case where the Delhi High Court reinforced these principles, emphasizing that deceptive similarity must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer, not a specialist.

Case Background:

The plaintiff, a company established in Taiwan in 1954, specializes in manufacturing adhesive tapes and labels. The company owns the trademark "DEER BRAND" in Class 17, covering products such as PVC insulating tape, adhesives tape, and water sticking tape, with the trademark registered from July 18, 1985, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The plaintiff introduced its products to the Indian market in 1993 and has since utilized the "DEER BRAND" and "DEVICE OF DEER" in connection with its goods.

Conversely, the defendant entered the Indian market later and argued that the plaintiff's "DEER" marks had fallen into disuse since 2011. The defendant contended that trademarks which have not been used for an extended period cannot be asserted. Furthermore, they claimed that "DEER" and "REINDEER" are different animals, thus no confusion could arise between the marks.

The defendant also presented a chart showing various other trademarks incorporating the "DEER" logo or word, arguing that "DEER" is a common element in trademarks.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

The court dismissed the defendant’s argument that "DEER" and "REINDEER" being different animals negated any possibility of confusion. The court emphasized that the test for deceptive similarity is based on the perception of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, not a zoologist.

In examining the likelihood of confusion, the court referred to two established principles from English jurisprudence. In Munday Vs. Carey (1905) RPC 27), it was held that when there is an intent to confuse, focus should be on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Furthermore, in Slazenger & Sons Vs. Feltham & Co. (1889) 6 RPC 531), the court asserted that when a defendant strains to make their mark as similar as possible to the plaintiff’s, the presumption is that they intended to deceive consumers successfully.

Intent to Confuse:

The court noted that the defendants made a deliberate attempt to imitate the plaintiff’s trademark to deceive consumers. The trade dress adopted by the defendants was nearly identical to that of the plaintiff, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Additionally, the defendants misrepresented their goods as "Made in Taiwan," likely to capitalize on the plaintiff’s established market reputation, as the plaintiff’s products are genuinely manufactured in Taiwan.

This clear intention to confuse the consumer justified the court’s decision to grant an injunction against the defendants. The court reiterated that in cases where an intent to confuse is evident, the emphasis should be on the similarities between the trademarks, as consumers are more likely to be misled by such similarities.

Trademark Similarity and Consumer Protection:

The court’s ruling underscores the critical role of trademark law in protecting both brand owners and consumers. By focusing on the similarities between the trademarks when intent to confuse is apparent, the court ensures that consumers are not misled by deceptively similar marks. This approach also protects the investment and reputation of trademark owners from unfair competition.

The judgment reinforces the notion that trademarks serve as identifiers of the source of goods or services. Any attempt to create a mark that closely resembles an established trademark with the intent to confuse consumers undermines this fundamental purpose. Therefore, the courts must be vigilant in preventing such deceptive practices to maintain the integrity of the marketplace.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of assessing trademark similarity in the context of consumer perception and intent to confuse. When there is evidence of deliberate imitation, courts must prioritize similarities over dissimilarities to prevent consumer deception and protect trademark owners' rights.

This case serves as a significant precedent, illustrating that courts will not tolerate attempts to exploit the goodwill of established trademarks through deceptive similarity. It emphasizes the broader implications of trademark law in safeguarding the interests of both consumers and legitimate businesses in the marketplace. By upholding these principles, the courts contribute to a fair and transparent commercial environment where trademarks continue to serve their essential role as indicators of source and quality.

Case Citation: Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Ltd. Vs Mahipal Jain and Ors :10.06.2024: [2024:BHC:2478] CS(COMM) 472/2023:Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539