Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JYOTI SINGH
Starbucks Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Teaquila A Fashion Caf – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark infringement and goodwill establishment. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. evidence of mark identification and unauthorized use. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of trademark infringement and passing off. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. evaluation of damages and evidence requirements. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion and order for relief and damages. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, etc. from infringing Plaintiff's registered trademark "FRAPPUCCINO" either alone or with any prefix or suffix or any other confusing and deceptively similar trademark in relation to their goods, services and business as well as passing off. Plaintiff has also prayed for award of damages and delivery up of the impugned goods, menu cards, etc. Decree for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the Defendants by using the FRAPPUCCINO marks is sought as an alternative relief to damages.
2. By order dated 03.09.2019, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
Trademark infringement and passing off established through confusion over use of similar marks, but need for sufficient evidence to support claims for damages emphasized.
Trademark infringement and passing off were established based on the triple identity test, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction. Notional damages were awarded in the absence of concrete evi....
The court applied the provisions under Order XIII-A of the CPC and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 to grant a Summary Judgment in a commercial dispute involving....
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.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
Prior use and registration of a trademark are essential for establishing rights and preventing consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The impugned marks are deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to public deception, and the Court passes a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
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
