Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Bennet, Coleman And Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Fashion One Television Llc – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 255/2021
1. Mr. Abhishek Saket, learned Counsel for the respondent appears and submits that, despite efforts to contact his client, he has not been successful. I had noted, on the last date, that this case could not be repeatedly adjourned awaiting the convenience of the respondent in contacting his counsel and instructing him in the matter.
2. Besides, the issue in controversy appears to be covered by the judgment of this Court in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 117/2021 (Bennet, Coleman and Company Ltd. v. Vnow Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 864).
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Registration No. 2581941 whereby the Trade Marks Registry has registered the mark 
in favour of Respondent 1 in Class 38 of the NICE classification applicable to registration of trade marks, w.e.f. 19 August 2013, in respect of the service "broadcast of television programs".
4. The petitioner is the proprietor of the marks TIMES NOW, ET NOW, MOVIES NOW, ROMEDY NOW and MIRROR NOW, also registered in the petitioner's favour in Class 38.
5. The services in respect of which these registrations have been granted are the following:
| Marks | Class | Services |
| TIMES NOW | 38 | television and radi |
The concept of 'family of marks' and the application of the anti-dissection rule under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act were central to the judgment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the anti-dissection rule and the identification of the dominant part of a composite mark, leading to a likelihood of confusio....
Distinctiveness in trademark law must be assessed concerning the goods or services; common terms can acquire distinctiveness based on usage, thus allowing for a prima facie case of infringement.
The commercial impression of a composite trademark is created by the mark as a whole, not by its component parts. The word 'PREMIER' was commonly used in conjunction with sporting leagues and had acq....
The court emphasized that the petitioner's claim was expansive beyond legitimate bounds, and the use of the word 'KWIK' on one of their many sub-brands could not give them dominance over what had alr....
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
