Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, J, G. RADHA RANI
Shree Santosh Family Dhaba, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Dhaba Exclusive, Hyderabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for trademark infringement (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's contention on distinct business (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent's claim of trademark rights (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. court's view on trademark confusion (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's decision on appeal (Para 39) |
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant – respondent – defendant aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2024 in I.A No.716 of 2024 in O.S No.151 of 2024 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri. G.L.Soni, learned counsel representing Sri N.Vishal, learned counsel for the appellant on record and Sri Ashok Ram Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Abhishek Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent on record.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the appellant had applied for the trademark and invited objections from the public at large. The respondent herein had filed their objections before the Trademark Authority in Delhi. The proceed
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....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
The failure to renew a trademark registration leads to abandonment, allowing subsequent users to claim rights.
The judgment underscores that trademark registration alone does not guarantee protection without actual use, and that delay in action does not preclude injunction if infringement is proven.
The court ruled that a suit for trademark infringement and passing off is maintainable even when both parties hold identical trademarks in different classes, emphasizing the need for adjudication on ....
A claimant may fail to make out a case of infringement of a trade mark for various reasons and may yet show that by imitating the mark claimed as a trademark, or otherwise, the Defendant has done wha....
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
