Back
Gem Edible Oil Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, K. M. Chinnadurai, Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
Carrying on business at; Gem Edible Oil Private Limited, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :-
(Prayer: This suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 27, 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyrights Act, and Section 7 Proviso 1 of the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2016, prayed for a judgment and decree against the defendant for,
a).permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, representatives, authorized persons, agents, staff or whomsoever claiming through or under the defendant from infringing the copyright of artistic work with deceptive and similar trade mark, trade dress, including words, pictures, layout design, label, packing material in the name and style of “CLASSIC GOLD” similar to the trade mark “GEM'S GOLD” registered by plaintiff.
b).permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men representatives, authorised persons, agents, staff or whomsoever claiming through or under the defendant from using the deceptive and similar trade mark, trade dress, including words, pictures, layout, design, lable, packing material in the name and style of “CLASSIC GOLD” in any way identical or similar t
Point of law: Trade mark – copyright - Plaintiff has made out a strong case for grant of injunction protecting the trademark GEM'S GOLD. Documents filed substantiate that the claim of the plaintiff i....
After interim injunction passed by this Court defendants has stopped using trademark of plaintiff and he has sent a letter to plaintiff informing that he is not using trademark “SPS Gopal” any furthe....
The court applied the Parle principle for comparison of competing marks and found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, leading to infringement and passing off.
The court upheld that lack of deceptive similarity precludes claims of trademark infringement and passing off, necessitating proof of goodwill and likelihood of confusion.
Trademark infringement occurs when a competing mark creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the source of goods; protection extends to trade dress when substantial similarities exist.
:TRADE MARK – COPYRIGHT - Defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff’s colour scheme and copyright. It would only be appropriate that the plaintiff’s copyright is protected.
Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is deceptively similar to a registered mark, leading to consumer confusion.
The essential feature in a Trade Mark has to be determined based on the evidence and usage of the Trade. The Court also emphasized that the registration of a Trade Mark shall confer upon the propriet....
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
