Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Global Health Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hg International – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CS(COMM) 333/2023
1. The plaintiffs are aggrieved, by the use, by Defendants 1 to 3 of the mark [IMG], which submits Ms. Trehan, infringes the mark [IMG] of the plaintiffs, as well as the word mark "MEDANTA", registered in favour of Plaintiff 2. The registrations held by the plaintiffs under the Trademarks Act, 1999 have been tabulated, in the documents filed with the plaint, thus:
| Sr. No. | Description of IPR | Type of Mark | Class | Registered owner of the IPR | Date of the registration/renewal/application |
| 1. | MEDANTA | Word mark | 5, 10, 39 & 42 | "Plaintiff 2" | 21 August 2008 |
| 2. | MEDANTHA | Word mark | 5, 10, 39 & 42 | "Plaintiff 2" | 21 Januray 2008 |
| 3. | MEDANTA-THE MEDICITY | Word mark | 5, 10, 39 & 42 | "Plaintiff 2" | 21 August 2008 |
| 4. | MEDANTHA-THE MEDICITY | Word mark | 5, 10, 39 & 42 | "Plaintiff 2" | 21 Januray 2008 |
| 5. | Medanta - Mediclinic | Word mark | 5, 10, 16, 39 42 & 44 | "Plaintiff 2" | 14 November 2014 |
| 6. | Medanta Awadh | Word mark | 5, 10, 16, 39, 42 & 44 | "Plaintiff 2" | 13 November 2014 |
| 7. | Medanta- The Medicity Awadh | Word mark | 5, 10, 16, 39, 42 & 44 | "Plaintiff 2" | 13 November 2014 |
| 8. | Medanta Lucknow | Word mark | 5, 10, 16, 39, 42 & 44 | "Plaintiff 2" | 14 November 2014 |
| 9. | Medanta- The Medicity Lucknow | Word mark | 5, 10, 16, 39, 42 & 44 | "Plaintiff 2" | 14 November 2014 |
| 10. | Medan | ||||
The central legal point established is the protection of registered trademarks and the grant of permanent injunction against trademark infringement.
Trademark infringement is addressed when a defendant undertakes not to use a contested mark, leading to permanent injunctions to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.
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....
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 exclusive rights of a trademark holder, along with copyright registration, can justify the grant of a permanent injunction and withdrawal of trademark applications in cases of infringement.
Trademark infringement occurs when identical or confusingly similar marks serve identical services, creating potential consumer confusion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to determine trademark infringement, likelihood of confusion, and the balance of convenience and irre....
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
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
