SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Inter Ikea Systems BV – Appellant
Versus
Sham Murari – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. Is the Defendants' adoption of the mark IKEA a `mere idea' or is it much more?

2. The present suit for injunction and damages in respect of the mark `IKEA' was instituted by the Plaintiffs. Vide order dated 13th December, 2017, a preliminary decree has already been passed in respect of the prayers seeking injunction in terms of paragraphs 31(a) and (b). The matter remained pending in respect of the remaining prayers for rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages.

3. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs made submissions on the aspect of damages on 28th August, 2018, and has filed a computation. On 30th August, 2018, partner of the Defendant No.3, IKEA Industries, appeared and his statement was recorded.

4. The brief case of the Plaintiffs is that Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated in the Netherlands. It has an Indian subsidiary, Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd -Plaintiff no.2.

5. The Plaintiffs deal with a wide range of affordable home furnishing products and have supplied several retailers, offering a full range of services. According to the Plaintiffs, the mark `IKEA' was coined in the year 1943 from the names of the founder, Ingvar Ka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top