Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
DS Confectionery Products Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any manner with confectionery products and/or any other goods and services including but not limited to hard flavoured candies and/or fruit candies and/any other goods and services using the trade mark PELSE/
, the trade mark as also trade dress for A picture containing text Description automatically generated PLUS++/
under the SNEH trading style or any other trademark, containing the plaintiff's trademark and copyright in PULSE/
, or any other mark deceptively similar thereto, which would amount to either infringement, passing off, dilution, unauthorised representation or unfair competitions. The plaintiff further prays for delivery up, rendition of accounts, costs and damages.
2. Vide order of this Court dated 20.08.2020, the defendants were proceeded with ex-parte in the present suit. A picture containing pickle Description automatically generated-A picture containing text Description automatically generated
3. It is the case of the plaintif
 | |||||
 | |||||
 | |||||
 | |||||
 | |||||
 | |||||
 | |||||
Trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation were established, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction, damages, and costs in favor of the plaintiff.
The court established that use of a trademark can infringe another's marked similarity leading to consumer confusion, mandating protection against unauthorized use.
The impugned marks are deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to public deception, and the Court passes a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
The court applied the provisions under Order XIII-A of the CPC and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 to grant a Summary Judgment in a commercial dispute involving....
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 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.
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
