Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Natures Essence Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Protogreen Retail Solutions Private Limited & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C Hari Shankar, J. - This order disposes of I.A. 12750/2020 in CS(COMM) 581/2020, preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Facts
2. The plaintiff alleges infringement, by the defendants, of the plaintiff's registered trademarks "NATURE'S" "NATURE ESSENCE" and "NATURE'S ESSENCE". The prayer, in the plaint, is specifically for an injunction, against the defendants, from making or dealing in any goods (particularly cosmetics), using any mark/name identical or deceptively similar to the aforesaid registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
3. I may observe, even at this point, that in the list of registered trademarks of the plaintiff, provided in para 7 of the plaint, there is no registration of the word or mark "NATURE'S". The mark "NATURE'S INC." and "NATURE'S ESSENCE" are, however, registered in favour of the plaintiff, and the logos of the plaintiff, relating to the said marks, appear thus:
4. The trademark of the defendants, with which the plaintiff is essentially aggrieved, appears thus:
5. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint may be explained as under:
(i) Since 1998, the plaintiff has been carrying out its business under
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
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)”.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion as a key factor in determining trademark infringement under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The judgment also cla....
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
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
