Back
MANISH PITALE
ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rayudu Vision Media Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
The applicant/plaintiff is seeking interim reliefs in this application in the context of its registered device mark
. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, by using its mark
in or about January 2023, has infringed upon the registered device mark of the plaintiff, thereby giving rise to the cause of action of filing the suit and the present application. The plaint initially stated a list of device marks and word marks in respect of which the plaintiff had obtained registration, but when the defendant pointed out that in respect of some of the marks, applications for registration were still pending, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint. This Court granted permission for amendment, as a consequence of which, the prayers in the present application are being pressed on the basis of amended pleadings.
2. The defendant filed its reply affidavit, as also an additional affidavit and the plaintiff filed its rejoinder affidavit, as a consequence of which, the pleadings were completed and the application was taken up for hearing and disposal.
3. The plaintiff has
|
|
Where a trade mark contains generic or common-to-trade terms, the proprietor cannot claim exclusive rights over those specific words. Comparison of marks for infringement must be done as a whole; if ....
The court ruled that deceptive similarity between competing marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and supports injunction against the infringing party.
Point of law: Registration of trademark shall, if valid, give to registered proprietor of trademark exclusive right to use of trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which trademark ....
The court ruled that despite the plaintiff's prior usage claim, the distinct markets of the parties and lack of confusion led to the dismissal of the injunction request.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringeme....
Section 24(4)(c) does not expect the registered trade mark of the plaintiff to have become a well-known Trade Mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(z)(g)”.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
