Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
Dreams Lingerie Products – Appellant
Versus
Akash Chawdhary – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A. 8665/2022 & 11026/2022
1. By this order, this Court shall be disposing of the above two applications; the first filed by the plaintiff, being IA No. 8665 of 2022, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the CPC'); the second filed by the defendant, being IA No. 11026 of 2022, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark 'DREAMS LINGERIE' which was adopted by it in the year 2003 with respect to the undergarments/lingerie in Class 25. It claims to be selling and marketing its products under the trade mark 'DREAMS' since the year 2006. The details of the registrations and the pending applications for the mark 'DREAMS' or bearing the formative mark 'DREAMS' are given by the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint, detailed as under:-
3. The plaintiff also gives the figures of turnover with respect to goods sold under the trade mark 'DREAMS' in paragraph 9 of the plaint, reproduced as und
Suppression of material facts is only relevant if it affects the claim, and the court will consider the overall impression of marks and the plaintiff's prior adoption and registration.
The court affirmed the plaintiff's rights to the trademark 'DREAMS LINGERIE' as a well-known mark, rejecting the defendant's claim of non-similarity due to their prior distributor relationship.
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 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....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
A descriptive mark is not entitled to exclusive protection and a registered trademark may be removed from the Register if it is not used for a continuous period of five years.
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
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
