Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Intercontinental Great Brands – Appellant
Versus
Parle Product Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A.1803/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2)
1. In the year 1912, so states the plaintiff, cream-filled sandwich cookies were introduced in the worldwide market by National Biscuit Corporation under the brand name OREO. The plaintiff claims, today, to be the owner and proprietor of the OREO brand of biscuits.
Registrations held by parties
2. The plaintiff and defendant hold the following registrations under the Trade Marks Act (to the extent they are relevant to the controversy in issue):
Plaintiff`s registrations
| Trade Mark | Goods | Date | Class | Status |
| [IMG] | Biscuits, cookies and crackers | 1st March 2012 Proposed to be used | 30 | Registered |
| [IMG] | Biscuits, cookies and crackers | 30th April 2010 Proposed to be used | 30 | Registered |
| [IMG] | Bakery goods, biscuits, cookies, brownies, cheese cakes, cookie crumbs, frozen confections, ice-cream, ice-cream cones, puddings, pies, pie crusts and hot chocolate | 3rd November 2015 Proposed to be used | 30 | Protection granted |
| [IMG] | Biscuits, cookies and crackers | 3rd May 2010 Proposed to be used | 30 | Registered |
| [IMG] | Biscuits, crackers cookies and crackers. | 30th June 2010 Proposed to be used | 30 | Registered |
| OREO (Word) | Biscuits, cookies and crackers. | 17th May 1991 Propos | ||
In order to establish infringement of a registered trademark or passing off, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to its own mark and that there is a likelihood of....
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 held that trademark and trade dress can attain distinctiveness over time; sudden changes in competitors' branding could constitute passing off if it causes public confusion.
A challenge to the validity of a trademark registration must include specific, tenable grounds; mere assertions or reservations do not meet the statutory requirements.
The use of the impugned marks EYESITE/Fig.2 and KL (Label) by the Defendants is likely to cause confusion and deception, thereby constituting infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks und....
The court ruled on trademark infringement, emphasizing phonetic and visual similarity between ISITE and EYESITE, resulting in consumer confusion, leading to a permanent injunction against the infring....
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
