Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
JMD Heritage Lawns Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ankit Chawla Proprietor Sadda Pind Restaurant – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in hospitality and allied services. The plaintiff runs what is known as a "Cultural Living Museum" by name SADDA PIND with the logo [IMG].
2. The plaintiff possesses word mark registrations, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in respect of the word mark SADDA PIND, as well as the device marks [IMG] and [IMG] with effect from 16th October 2015, 15th February 2016 and 19th September 2017 respectively.
3. The outlet of the plaintiff, it is submitted, provides, inter alia, restaurant and boarding services.
4. The plaint instituted by the plaintiff further asserts that, in a short period of time, the plaintiff has acquired considerable goodwill in its word mark as well as its device marks. The plaintiff has also provided figures of its annual turnover which, during the year 2021-22, was to the tune of Rs.13.82 crores. It is also asserted, in the plaint, that the plaintiff has invested considerable amounts towards advertisement and promotional activities which, during the year 2021-22, is to the tune of Rs.26,69,000/-.
5. The plaintiff also runs a dedicated website www.saddapind.co.in and enjoys significant pre
Deliberate infringement, continuous insistence on persisting with infringing activity, and contumacious disobedience of the injunction order warrant punitive action and a permanent injunction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a permanent injunction for passing off its mark 'SANDHI SUDHA' and the consideration of the defendants' non-rep....
Unauthorized, deceptively similar use of a brand mark within the same industry constitutes infringement and passing off. Courts may grant permanent injunctions and declare a trademark well-known when....
Trademark infringement occurs when identical or confusingly similar marks serve identical services, creating potential consumer confusion.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
Prior use and registration of a trademark are essential for establishing rights and preventing consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The court established that the unauthorized use of identical trademarks constitutes infringement and passing off, justifying a permanent injunction and awarding damages to the rightful trademark owne....
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
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
