FDC Limited vs Faraway Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
FDC Limited – Appellant
Versus
Faraway Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's registered trademark and its usage (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendant's attempt to register a similar trademark (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and passing off (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. defendant's counterarguments against infringement (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's assessment of arguments presented (Para 18 , 19)
6. legal standards for granting injunctions (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. necessity of proving likelihood of confusion (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. tests for evaluating trademark similarity (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. conclusion of the court - no infringement found (Para 74 , 75 , 76)

JUDGMENT

(Video-Conferencing)

1. By this order, I dispose of I.A. 18292/2019, preferred by the plaintiff FDC Ltd under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking interim injunction against the defendant M/s Faraway Foods Pvt Ltd, from manufacturing, marketing or selling products under the mark "MUMUM" which, it is alleged, is deceptively similar to the trade mark "MUMMUM", used by the plaintiff.

Rival Pleadings

2. The plaintiff claims to have coined and adopted the trade mark "MUMMUM" in 1986,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTC.HARI SHANKARFDC Limited – AppellantVersusFaraway Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
FDC Limited – Appellant
Versus
Faraway Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent