Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Elementia Wellness Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tes Beauty Services Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-contested nature of the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. establishment of plaintiff’s prior use and trademark registrations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. recognition of the plaintiff's mark as well-known. (Para 7 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. cease and desist notice and acknowledgment of infringement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. infringement and passing off analysis. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court’s decree and direction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
1. Summons were issued in the suit and notice was issued in I.A. 2625/2020, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on 25th February, 2020.
2. The only date on which appearance was forthcoming, for any of the defendants, was on 17th July, 2020, when Defendant 2 was represented. Prior thereto and thereafter, there has been no appearance on behalf of the defendants. Written statement has also not been filed.
3. Clearly, therefore, this suit is not being contested.
4. The plaintiff claims to have established in 2009 and to be providing spa services under the name and style "TATTVA SPA" and to be operating under the domain name www.tattvaspa.com, registered in 2009. The plaint further avers that services of the plaintiff are availa
 | |||
 |  |
Trademark infringement occurs when identical or confusingly similar marks serve identical services, creating potential consumer confusion.
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....
The court held that a well-known trademark, like `TATA`, is entitled to protection against any unauthorized use that may deceive the public, confirming jurisdiction over foreign entities where online....
The defendant was entitled to the benefit of defense under Section 35 of the Act as it had been using the mark 'VASUNDHARA' in a bona fide manner since 2001.
Deliberate infringement, continuous insistence on persisting with infringing activity, and contumacious disobedience of the injunction order warrant punitive action and a permanent injunction.
Trademark infringement and passing off can be established based on the use of deceptively similar marks and failure to comply with interim injunction orders.
The expression 'HAIR SPA' is regarded as a generic term, descriptive in nature and hence not capable of exclusive trademark protection, preventing claims of infringement.
The defendant's use of a deceptively similar trade name and domain name to the plaintiff's trademark constituted trademark infringement and passing off, leading to the court's decision in favor of th....
The court affirmed that prior use of a registered trademark provides substantial grounds for an injunction against similar marks, emphasizing deceptive similarity effects on consumer perception.
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
