Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Pernod Ricard India Private Limited VS Karanveer Singh Chhabra...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1202 : Product configuration or shape cannot be protected as a trademark if it is dictated by the product''''s function and is not distinctive. This principle is grounded in policy considerations that prevent functional or aesthetic monopolies, even when the average consumer may identify the essential characteristics of the shape. In such cases, consumer perception is not determinative for assessing registrability, particularly where legal prohibitions against functional features apply.Checking relevance for Cryogas Equipment Private Limited VS Inox India Limited...
Checking relevance for M. M. Rubber Company LTD. VS Collector Of Central Excise, Madras...
Checking relevance for Atul Glass Industries Private LTD. : Hindustan Safety Glass Works LTD. VS Collector Of Central Excise: Union Of India...
Checking relevance for Triveni Glass Limited VS Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Knitpro International VS Examiner of Trade Marks...
2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2085 : Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the shape of a product cannot be protected as a trademark if it is dictated by the product''''s function and lacks distinctive character. The court emphasized that for a shape to be protectable, it must have acquired secondary meaning, as product shapes are generally not inherently distinctive. This is because consumers typically do not associate a product''''s shape with its source unless it has acquired distinctiveness through use in the marketplace. The Supreme Court of the United States in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, 529 U.S. 205, 120 S.Ct. 1339, held that product design, like color, is not inherently distinctive and cannot be granted exclusive rights without proof of secondary meaning. The court further noted that consumers are aware that product designs are primarily intended to serve utilitarian or aesthetic purposes, not to identify the source, making it difficult to establish distinctiveness without evidence of acquired meaning.Checking relevance for Suman International VS Mahendra Gulwani...
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5748 : Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the shape of a product cannot be protected as a trademark if it is dictated by the product’s function or is the generic shape of the product. A shape is registrable only if it is distinctive and has acquired a secondary meaning, meaning it is no longer perceived as generic but as identifying the source of the product. The shape must not be functional and must be capable of distinguishing the goods of one trader from another without relying on additional elements like names or logos.Checking relevance for Hindustan Colas Private Limited, Rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, Raju N Nair, Mumbai VS Muthoos Enterprises, Chennai...
2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 42 : The court held that colour and shape of a product are not indicative of the product nor are they associated with the trademark, and therefore cannot be protected as a trademark if they are dictated by the product''''s function and lack distinctiveness. Specifically, the court stated: ''''Even if assuming that there has been deliberate copying of similar colour and shape of the plaintiff''''s product, that would not amount to passing off, since colour and shape are not indicative of the product neither are they associated with the trademark.'''' This confirms that product configuration or shape cannot be protected as a trademark if it is functional and not inherently distinctive.Checking relevance for Diageo Brands B.V. vs Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt. Ltd....
Diageo Brands B.V. vs Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi (2022)
: Under the Designs Act, 2000, a product''''s configuration or shape cannot be protected as a design if it is dictated solely by function. This principle is grounded in the object of the Designs Act, which is to protect shape but not functional shape. If the shape and configuration are dictated solely by function, the design is not registrable and cannot form the basis of an infringement action. This is supported by the case of In re: Lamson Industries Ltd.''''s Application, (1978) RPC 1, and the decision in Amp. Inc. v. Utilux Pty. Ltd., 1972 RPC 103, which established that purely functional designs are excluded from protection under the Designs Act.
