Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals

Prior search report from the Trademark Registry is must for proving Honest Adoption

Introduction:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras delivered a crucial judgment on July 12, 2024, in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai. The case centered around the registration of the trademark 'CANDEX-B' by Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals for pharmaceutical products in Class 5, which Glenmark Pharmaceuticals opposed, citing confusion with its established trademark 'CANDID'. This judgment is significant for understanding the legal principles surrounding trademark disputes, especially the importance of prior search reports from the Trademark Registry in establishing honest adoption.

Background and Factual Matrix:

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, the appellant, has been using the trademark 'CANDID' since 1978-79 for dermatological products. The company opposed the registration of 'CANDEX-B' by Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals, arguing that the mark was confusingly similar to 'CANDID' and could mislead consumers. The appellant also claimed that the first respondent's adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was dishonest, intending to capitalize on the goodwill associated with 'CANDID'. Importantly, Glenmark emphasized that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals failed to conduct a trademark search prior to adopting 'CANDEX-B', which would have revealed the existence of 'CANDID' in the register.

On the other hand, Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals argued that they had been using 'CANDEX-B' since 1997 and were entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as an honest and concurrent user. They contended that both trademarks derived from the medical term for candidiasis, a fungal infection, and there was no likelihood of confusion.

Legal Issues:

The primary issues before the court were:

1. Whether the first respondent's use of 'CANDEX-B' constituted honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act.
2. Whether the failure to conduct a trademark search before adopting the mark 'CANDEX-B' impacted the validity of the first respondent's claim.
3. Whether the registration of 'CANDEX-B' was likely to cause confusion or deception among the public, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Prior Search Report: A Crucial Element in Establishing Honest Adoption:

The appellant's argument hinged on the fact that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals did not conduct a prior trademark search before adopting 'CANDEX-B'. A prior search report from the Trademark Registry is a critical document in trademark law as it establishes whether a proposed trademark is unique or similar to existing marks. The absence of such a search can indicate a lack of due diligence, which is often considered when assessing whether the adoption of a mark was honest.

In this case, the court emphasized that Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act is designed to protect the public interest by preventing confusion or deception. The court noted that had Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals conducted a proper search, they would have discovered the existing 'CANDID' mark, which would have alerted them to the potential for consumer confusion.

The court observed that failing to undertake this due diligence was a significant omission, casting doubt on the bona fides of Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals' claim of honest adoption. This omission weakened their position, especially given the established reputation and prior use of 'CANDID' by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

Likelihood of Confusion and Deception:

Another crucial aspect of the court's analysis was the likelihood of confusion between 'CANDEX-B' and 'CANDID'. Both marks were used for dermatological products, and the court noted that such products directly impact public health. In such cases, even a minor likelihood of confusion can have serious consequences.

The court referred to the precedent set in Indian Immunologicals, where the strength of a trademark was considered weak due to its derivation from a generic name. However, the court distinguished the present case by emphasizing that 'CANDID' had been in use for over two decades before 'CANDEX-B', making it a well-known trademark in the pharmaceutical industry.

Given the similarity in the goods, the court found that 'CANDEX-B' was likely to cause confusion among consumers who might assume it was related to or endorsed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. This potential confusion, combined with the failure to conduct a prior search, led the court to conclude that the adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was not bona fide.

Conclusion and Court's Decision:

The court ultimately held that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals' use of 'CANDEX-B' did not constitute honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that there was a significant likelihood of deception or confusion among the public due to the similarity of the trademarks and the fact that both were used for treating dermatological conditions.

The judgment underscored the importance of conducting a prior search before adopting a trademark, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where the potential for confusion can have serious public health implications. The court set aside the impugned order and canceled the registration of 'CANDEX-B', directing its removal from the register of trademarks.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the need for thorough due diligence in trademark adoption and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The judgment reinforces the role of prior search reports in proving honest adoption and the courts' responsibility to protect public interest by preventing confusion in the marketplace.

Case Citation: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals:12.07.2024 : (T) CMA (TM) No.40 of 2023: Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

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.

GD Pharmaceuticals Vs Cento Products

The High Court of Delhi, on August 7, 2024 delivered a judgment in the case of G.D. Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (plaintiff) versus M/S Cento Products (India) (defendant), case number CS(COMM) 53/2019 & I.A. 2215/2021. The plaintiff, established in 1929, is a manufacturer and seller of medicinal and cosmetic preparations, with a focus on OTC pharmaceuticals and health care cosmetics. They are the proprietors of the trademark "BOROLINE," registered since 1929 for antiseptic ointments and creams, and have used distinctive dark green and white packaging for nearly 90 years.

The trademark 'BOROLINE' has been in use since 1929, which means it has been used for nearly 90 years at the time the document was written. The distinctive features of the trademark 'BOROLINE' include, A distinctive dark green and white packaging that has been used for the last 90 years.The product is sold in the form of tubes and plastic pots.

The entire packaging of the products is of a distinctive dark green color.

The trademark 'BOROLINE' is presented in a stylized, white colored font, in block capital letters across the middle of the packaging.

The registered mark appears on the right-hand corner of the packaging.

The trademark is associated with a distinct dark green tube ending in an octagonal black cap, which has come to be recognized with the plaintiff's product.

The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, among other reliefs. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product, marketed under the name "BOROBEAUTY," had a deceptively similar trade dress and packaging to their "BOROLINE" products. Despite the defendant's offers to change their trade dress and name during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff pressed for a declaration of "BOROLINE" as a well-known mark.

The court, after considering the extensive use, popularity, and recognition of the "BOROLINE" trademark, declared it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted the trademark's long history, its recognition as a Superbrand, and its extensive sales and advertising. The defendant was directed to change its trade dress and trademark to be distinct from the plaintiff's, refraining from using the prefix "BORO" and the dark green color associated with "BOROLINE."

The court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using any mark or trade dress that could be confused with "BOROLINE." The defendant was also ordered to pay costs of ₹2,00,000 to the plaintiff within eight weeks. The suit and pending applications were disposed of, with the decree sheet to be drawn up accordingly.

Case Citation: GD Pharmaceuticals Vs Cento Products:07.08.2024 : CS(COMM) 53/2019 : 2024:DHC:6224: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar

In the High Court of Delhi, Dabur India Limited filed a suit against Ashok Kumar and others for trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff, represented by several advocates, sought various interim orders.

The nature of the dispute between Dabur India Limited and Ashok Kumar and Others involves allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition. Specifically, Dabur India Limited claims that unknown defendant no. 1 (likely associated with Ashok Kumar and Others) is operating fake domains and engaging in activities that infringe upon Dabur's registered trademarks and copyrights. This includes using Dabur's trademarks, logos, and content without authorization to deceive the public and solicit customer.

The suit alleges that unknown defendant no. 1 is operating fake domains and impersonating Dabur by using the company's trademarks and logos to deceive the public and solicit customers. The plaintiff provided evidence of the defendants' fraudulent activities, including screenshots of the impugned websites, forged identity cards, and bank accounts used for receiving payments from unsuspecting individuals.

The court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Dabur's trademarks, logos, and content on their websites and directed the defendants to take down the infringing URLs. The court also ordered the blocking of telephone numbers, WhatsApp numbers, Telegram links, and bank accounts associated with the defendants' fraudulent activities.

Case Citation: Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar:18.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 578/2024 : Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.

Abbott Gmbh Vs Tcsol Biopharma

The plaintiffs, ABBOTT GMBH & ORS., allege that the defendants, TCSOL BIOPHARMA & ORS., are infringing on their trademark, trade dress, and design for the pharmaceutical product 'THYRONORM.' The nature of the infringement includes:

Trademark Infringement:

The defendants are using a similar name, 'L-THYRONEU,' which the court found to be phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'THYRONORM.' This similarity could lead to confusion among consumers.

Trade Dress Infringement:

The defendants are using a trade dress that is structurally similar to that of the plaintiffs, specifically the distinctive color combination of white and pink.

Design Infringement:

The defendants are using a cap design that is substantially similar to the plaintiffs' registered design, which could also cause consumer confusion.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions constitute a clear attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs' well-known brand 'THYRONORM' in the pharmaceutical market.

The defendants were using a similar pink and white color combination and a similar name, 'L-THYRONEU,' which the court found to be phonetically and structurally similar to 'THYRONORM.' The court, exercising caution due to the nature of pharmaceutical products, granted an ex-parte injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using the infringing mark, trade dress, and design.

Case Citation: Abbott Gmbh Vs Tcsol Biopharma:16.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 573/2024: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.

Adidas Ag Vs Keshav H Tulsiani

In the High Court of Delhi, Adidas AG, a renowned sports goods manufacturer, filed a suit against Keshav H. Tulsiani & Ors for trademark infringement. Adidas, established in 1948, has a global reputation and extensive sales, including in India, where it has been present since 1989. The company has multiple trademark registrations in India, including for the "Adidas" mark.

The defendants, who did not appear in court, claimed they adopted the mark "Adidas" in good faith, inspired by personal affection, and argued that the suit was barred by delay, acquiescence, and laches. However, the court found that Adidas had consistently opposed the defendants' trademark applications and promptly challenged the erroneous registration upon discovery.

The court established its territorial jurisdiction based on Adidas's business activities in Delhi and the defendants' admission of selling their goods all over India. The court also ruled that the suit was not barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence, as Adidas had actively pursued legal actions to protect its trademark rights.

The court found that Adidas was the prior user of the "Adidas" mark in India, with registrations predating the defendants' adoption in 1987. The defendants' trademark registration in class 24 for textiles was canceled, and their claim of prior use was not substantiated.

The court concluded that the defendants' use of the "Adidas" mark for textiles infringed Adidas's trademark rights, given the identity of the marks and the similarity of the goods. The defendants failed to demonstrate honest adoption or to provide evidence of actual use before Adidas's registrations.

In light of the infringement, the court granted Adidas a permanent injunction against the defendants' use of the "Adidas" mark for textiles. Adidas was awarded nominal damages of Rs. 3,00,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 11,22,060. The court disposed of the suit and pending applications with these terms.

Case Citation: Adidas Ag Vs Keshav H Tulsiani:19.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 582/2018: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.

Kabushiki Toshiba Appliances Vs Toshiba Appliances Co

Appropriateness of Defendant’s Explanation for Trademark Adoption in "Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Vs Tosiba Appliances Co" case

Introduction:

Trademark disputes hinge on the originality of a mark and the intent behind its adoption. In the case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co., the defendant, Tosiba Appliances, presented an explanation for adopting the trademark "TOSIBA" that was deemed improper by the court. This article analyzes the defendant’s justification, the court’s assessment of the evidence, and the broader implications for trademark law.

Plaintiff's Case:

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, the Plaintiff's case is that it is a globally recognized corporation that owns the trademark "TOSHIBA," under which it sells various electronic and electrical goods. The trademark was conceived in 1939 and registered in India in 1953 across multiple classes. The plaintiff argued that the "TOSHIBA" mark is distinctive, with significant goodwill in India, and that the defendant's use of the similar "TOSIBA" mark constitutes trademark infringement.

Defendant's Case:

The defendant, Tosiba Appliances Co., claimed that it adopted the "TOSIBA" trademark independently in 1974, with no knowledge of the plaintiff’s prior registration. According to the defendant, the mark was created as a tribute to the founder’s mother, affectionately known as "Toshi Bai." They contended that the trademark was devised as a homage and had been continuously used since 1975, acquiring substantial recognition in the market.

The Defendant’s Explanation: Improper Justification?

The Explanation’s Content:

During the deposition, the defendant, through DW-1 (the proprietor), stated that "TOSIBA" was inspired by the proprietor's mother, Ms. Sumitra, who was reverently called "Toshi Bai." The term "Bai" was deemed unsuitable for a business name, especially in the context of electrical goods, leading to its modification to "Ba," which is a term of respect in Gujarati.

Court’s Examination of the Justification:

The court found several inconsistencies in the defendant's narrative:

Lack of Corroboration:

The defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that Ms. Sumitra was indeed known as "Toshi Bai." No family members or documents corroborated this claim, raising doubts about the truthfulness of the explanation.

Inconsistencies in the Story:

The court noted that the defendant did not satisfactorily explain the omission of the letters 'H' and 'I' from "Toshi Bai" to form "TOSIBA." The justification that "Ba" was used as a term of respect was questioned, especially since the defendant's testimony concerning the existence of daughters-in-law at the time of adoption was found to be implausible.

Lack of Logical Consistency:

The defendant’s explanation of modifying "Bai" to "Ba" due to respect appeared forced and lacked a logical connection to the business context. The court viewed this as an attempt to retroactively justify the adoption of a mark that was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark.

Court’s Conclusion:

The court concluded that the defendant's explanation for adopting "TOSIBA" was not credible. The inconsistencies and lack of corroboration indicated that the narrative was contrived to provide a veneer of legitimacy to what was essentially an act of trademark infringement.

Infringement of Plaintiff's Trademark:

Legal Framework:

Under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1958, the unauthorized use of a trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark constitutes infringement. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's "TOSIBA" mark was deceptively similar to "TOSHIBA," causing confusion among consumers and diluting the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's brand.

Court’s Finding:

The court agreed with the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of "TOSIBA" amounted to trademark infringement. The marks were phonetically and visually similar, leading to a high likelihood of confusion. The court emphasized that the defendant's adoption of the mark was not in good faith and lacked honest concurrent use.

Passing Off: The Unsuccessful Claim:

Plaintiff’s Argument:

The plaintiff also sought to establish a passing-off claim, arguing that their "TOSHIBA" mark had a transborder reputation in India prior to the defendant’s adoption of "TOSIBA." They asserted that the defendant's use of the similar mark would deceive consumers into believing that the goods originated from the plaintiff, thereby damaging their reputation.

Court’s Conclusion:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of their trademark's transborder reputation in India before the defendant’s adoption of "TOSIBA." As a result, the passing-off claim was not sustained.

Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence:

Defendant’s Argument:

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had delayed in filing the lawsuit and had, by their inaction, acquiesced to the defendant's use of the "TOSIBA" mark.

Court’s Ruling:

The court rejected this argument, stating that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had unduly delayed the legal proceedings or acquiesced to the use of the mark. The court emphasized that the long duration of the case was due to the complexity of the issues involved and not due to any fault of the plaintiff.

Relief Granted:

The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the "TOSIBA" trademark or any other deceptively similar mark. In recognition of the infringement and the protracted nature of the lawsuit, the court awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- and recoverable costs.

Conclusion:

The case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. highlights the importance of a credible and consistent explanation for the adoption of a trademark, particularly when faced with allegations of infringement. The defendant’s failure to provide a plausible and corroborated explanation for adopting the "TOSIBA" mark played a crucial role in the court’s decision. This case serves as a reminder to businesses that the justification for a trademark’s adoption must be honest, well-documented, and capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.

Case Citation:Kabushiki Toshiba Appliances Vs Toshiba Appliance Co:16.08.2024 : CS(OS) 55/2006: 2024: DHC: 6178: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.

Lacoste Vs Crocodile International Pte Ltd

Analysis of Standalone Saurian Device Registration Vs. Composite Saurian Device Registration: The Lacoste Vs. Crocodile International Case

Introduction:

The case of Lacoste Vs Crocodile International brings to the forefront the nuanced differences between standalone device registration and composite device registration, highlighting the critical importance of specific trademark registration strategies in defending intellectual property rights.

Background of the Dispute:

The dispute centers around the famous "crocodile" device, a symbol strongly associated with Lacoste, a renowned French clothing brand. Lacoste, alongside its Indian licensee, Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd., brought a lawsuit against Crocodile International Pte Ltd. and Crocodile Products Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and copyright violation concerning their iconic crocodile device.

Lacoste's contention was that Crocodile International’s use of a similar saurian (crocodile) device on their apparel products constituted a deliberate imitation of Lacoste’s registered trademark, thereby infringing upon their intellectual property rights. Crocodile International, however, defended its use by claiming a concurrent use agreement with Lacoste, dating back to the 1980s, that supposedly allowed both parties to use their respective crocodile devices in certain territories, including India.

Lacoste’s Case: Standalone Saurian Device Registration

Lacoste's arguments were built upon two primary intellectual property rights:

Copyright in the Artistic Work:

Lacoste asserted ownership of the copyright in the artistic representation of the crocodile device, which was first introduced in 1927. This device was registered in India in 2002, but Lacoste's association with the device predates even this registration, strengthening their claim to exclusive rights.

Trademark Rights:

Lacoste emphasized that it had been the registered proprietor of the standalone crocodile device as a trademark in India since 1983. The long-standing use and recognition of this device in India, Lacoste argued, provided them with exclusive rights to its use, precluding others, including Crocodile International, from employing a similar mark without consent.

Crocodile International’s Defense:

Composite Saurian Device Registration:

Crocodile International's defense hinged on a different interpretation of the rights associated with the "crocodile" device:

Historical Use and Registration:

Crocodile International claimed that it had adopted and used its version of the "crocodile" trademark since 1947, with registrations in several countries, including India as early as 1952. This long history of use, according to Crocodile International, gave them legitimate rights over their crocodile device.

Co-Existence Agreement:

Central to Crocodile International's defense was the assertion of a co-existence agreement with Lacoste, first established in 1983 and allegedly extended in 1985. This agreement, according to Crocodile International, allowed both parties to use their respective crocodile devices in certain territories, including India.

Composite Device Registration:

Crocodile International further contended that their rights were tied to a composite saurian device, which included the crocodile mark as part of a larger design. They argued that this composite registration should protect their use of any saurian device similar to Lacoste's.

Court’s Findings: Standalone Vs. Composite Registration:

The court's analysis centered on the distinction between standalone device registration (as in Lacoste’s case) and composite device registration (as in Crocodile International’s case). The ruling provided critical insights into how trademark rights are interpreted when different entities claim ownership over similar or related marks.

Prior Adoption and Use:

The court noted that Crocodile International did not specifically plead prior adoption and use of the standalone saurian device that Lacoste was contesting. This omission was significant because it confined Crocodile International’s claims to the composite device that formed part of their registered trademarks. This composite registration, however, did not automatically confer rights over any and all variations of saurian devices, especially those not part of the registered composite marks.

Lacoste’s Standalone Rights:

The court found that Lacoste’s registration of the standalone crocodile device in 1983, coupled with its prior use, gave them a strong legal footing. This early registration and continued use established Lacoste's rights over the standalone device, which predated Crocodile International’s claimed use of a similar device by several years.

Impact of Co-Existence Agreements:

While Crocodile International relied on the 1983 Agreement and the 1985 Letter, the court concluded that these documents did not authorize Crocodile International to use the standalone saurian device in India. The co-existence agreement was interpreted as applying only to specific marks and territories, and did not extend to a blanket right to use any saurian device resembling Lacoste's trademark in India.

Conclusion: The Court’s Ruling:

Based on the evidence presented, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using the contested saurian device in India. The ruling emphasized the distinction between rights conferred by standalone and composite trademark registrations.

Lacoste’s longstanding registration and use of the standalone crocodile device provided a robust basis for their claims, while Crocodile International’s defense, centered on a composite mark and co-existence agreements, was insufficient to override Lacoste's trademark rights in India. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of clear and distinct trademark registrations, particularly in cases where similar devices are in use by different parties.

Implications of the Ruling:

This ruling has broader implications for trademark law, particularly in industries where logos and symbols are central to brand identity. Companies must be diligent in securing and maintaining trademark registrations for all variations of their key marks, not just composite designs. Additionally, this case highlights the need for clear, detailed agreements in co-existence arrangements to prevent future disputes over trademark rights in overlapping territories.

The Lacoste Vs. Crocodile International case serves as a vital precedent for understanding how courts may interpret trademark rights in the context of similar or identical devices, especially when those rights are tied to specific forms of registration. It underscores the necessity for businesses to strategically manage their trademark portfolios to safeguard their brand identities in an increasingly competitive global market.

Case Citation: Lacoste Vs Crocodile International Pte Ltd:14.08.2024 : CS(COMM) 1550/2016: 2024:DHC:6150: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

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.