Date post: | 17-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | brainleague |
View: | 298 times |
Download: | 0 times |
By,
Ms Vintee Mishra
Brain League IP Services
Copyright Brain League IP Services Pvt. Ltd. 2009
RISKSINFRINGEMENTPASSING OFFSUIT FOR THREAT OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS AND TRADE LIBEL
WHAT CONSTITUTES INFRINGEMENT
IDENTICAL OR DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR MARKS
COVERED GOODS AND SERVICESUSE OF MARK IN COURSE OF TRADEUSE OF MARK IN MANNER OF
TRADEMARKPERMITTED USER
MAGIC V MAGIX FOR FANS
INFRINGEMENT CONTI…IDENTICAL MARK - SIMILAR GOODS AND SERVICES MATRIX V MATRIX FOR MOUSE AND
KEYBOARD
SIMILAR MARK – IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR GOODS AND SERVICES MAGIC V MAZIX FOR FANS
IDENTICAL MARK – IDENTICAL GOODS AND SERVICES MATRIX V MATRIX FOR COMPUTERS
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION/ASSOCIATION WITH TRADEMARK
NEW HOPE FOOD INDUSTRIES V. PIONEER BAKERIES
NEW HOPE - CONFECTIONARY ITEMS AND BAKERY PRODUCTS
TRADE NAMES AND MARKS “MILKA” AND “MILKA WONDER CAKE”
PIONEER-SAME BUSINESS TRADEMARK “MILKA”
INFRINGEMENT? YES
TEST OF INFRINGEMENT
DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY 2 IDENTICAL TRADEMARKS –INFRINGEMENT NOT IDENTICAL – RESEMBLE-CAUSE
CONFUSION ONUS – PLAINTIFF PURCHASERS LIKELY TO DECEIVE COMPARE ESSENTIAL FEATURES MARK AS A WHOLE RESEMBLACE – PHONETIC OR VISUAL
XEROX V ZERRROGZZ
MEDILINE HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. V. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR VARSHNEY, TRADING AS SALAKA PHARMA CARE PVT. LTD APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK ‘ANTIFLAM’ RESPONDENT TRADEMARK ‘NT FLEM’ PHARMA PRODUCTS INFRINGEMENT? YES
THE COURT HELD SINCE THE GOODS ARE SAME, RIVAL MARKS PHONETICALLY SIMILAR AND RESPONDENT SUBSEQUENT USER, THEREFORE HELD INFRINGEMENT
INFRINGEMENT CONTI…DILUTION MARK IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR –TRADEMARK ® GOODS AND SERVICES NOT SIMILAR TRADEMARK ® - REPUTATION IN INDIA USE WITHOUT DUE CAUSE USE- UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, DETRIMENTAL TO
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AND REPUTE – TRADEMARK ®
BARVEE FOR DOLLS – EARLIER MARK V BARWE FOR BAR AND RESTAURANTS
MEANING OF REPUTATION
SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF EARLIER MARK EXIST TO MAKE ASSOCIATION
KNOWN TO SIGNIFICANT PART OF PUBLICSUFFICIENT TO BE KNOWN IN ONE AREACONSIDER MARKET SHARE,
GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT, DURATION OF USE AND SIZE OF INVESTMENT
ROLEX SA V. ALEX JEWELLERY “ROLEX” REGISTERED FOR WATCHES IN
AROUND THE WORLD INCLUDING INDIA.
DEFENDANT ALSO STARTS SELLING JEWELLERY UNDER THE NAME OF “ROLEX” IN INDIA.
DILUTION? YES
HELD USE WITHOUT DUE CAUSE AND DEFENDANT TAKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WHICH WAS DETRIMENTAL TO ITS DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AND REPUTE
INFRINGEMENT CONTI…
USE TRADEMARK ® AS- TRADE NAME OR PART OF IT NAME OF BUSINESS OR PART OF IT SAME CLASS OF GOODS AND SERVICES
AFFIX TO GOODS OR PACKAGEEX-IM GOODS UNDER THE MARKBUSINESS PAPER OR ADVERTISINGOFFER FOR SALE OR ACTUAL SALE, MARKETS,
STOCKS GOODS AND SERVICESAPPLIED TO MATERIAL FOR PACKAGING OR
LABELLINGCOMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT - DISPARAGEMENT
INFRINGEMENT BY ADVERTISINGCOMPARATIVE ADVERTISING DECLARE OWN GOODS AS BEST DECLARE OWN GOODS BETTER THAN OTHERS, EVEN IF UNTRUE COMPARE ADVANTAGES OF OWN GOODS WITH OTHERS NOT SLANDER OR DEFAME
DISPARAGEMENT FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT STATEMENT CAPABLE OF DECEPTION DECEPTION INFLUENCE PURCHASING
DECISION
LOCALITY OF INFRINGEMENT
TERRITORIAL RIGHT
TRADE MAY NOT OVERLAP
USE OF OFFENDING MARK - MUST IN INDIA
IMPORT FOR RE-EXPORT SUFFICIENT USE
USE OF OFFENDING MARK – IN COURSE OF TRADE
ACTS NOT CONSTITUTING INFRINGEMENT
HONEST PRACTICES EG – LIVTEC V LIVDEE
NO UNFAIR ADVANTAGE DETRIMENTAL TO DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OR REPUTE. EG – COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT
DESCRIPTIVENESS. EG – COOLAIR FOR AIR CONDITIONERS
ACTS NOT CONSTITUTING INFRINGEMENTUSAGE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS
RESALE OF GOODS OR SUPPLY OF SERVICES ON WHICH MARK APPLIED AND NOT REMOVED EG – PARALLEL IMPORTATION
ACTS NOT CONSTITUTING INFRINGEMENT
USE ON PARTS OR ACCESSORIES EG – CAR AND CAR ACCESSORIES
LAWFUL ACQUISITION OF GOODS WITH TRADEMARK
MCDONALDS V MCCURRYMCDONALDS -RIGHT CLAIMED OVER THE WORD “MC”SIMILAR SERVICES- BOTH IN RESTAURANT BUSINESSMCCURRY - “MC” / “MAC” IS A COMMON NAME OF A
PERSON, USED COMMONLY IN BUSINESS ACROSS VARIOUS DOMAINS
INFRINGEMENT?NO
COURT HELD HONEST PRACTICE. NOT TAKING UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE.
DEFENCESNO TITLE TO SUEINVALID REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
INFRINGEMENTCONCURRENT REGISTRATIONPRIOR USERINNOCENT INFRINGEMENTLONG DELAY, LACHES AND
ACQUIESCENCE
PASSING OFFGENERAL PRINCIPLES
MISREPRESENTATION COURSE OF TRADEPROSPECTIVE AND ULTIMATE
CONSUMERSINJURIOUS TO BUSINESS OR
GOODWILLACTUAL DAMAGE TO BUSINESS OR
GOODWILL
ELEMENTS OF PASSING OFFGOODWILL OR REPUTATION DEPENDS ON NATURE OF GOODS, QUANTUM OF
SALES, EXTENT OF ADVERTISEMENT, AREA OF USAGE
DECEPTION DEPENDS ON NATURE AND EXTENT OF
REPUTATION, FIELDS OF ACTIVITY, SIMILARITY OF MARK, CONSUMERS LIKELY TO RECEIVE
DAMAGE TO GOODWILL OR REPUTATION ACTUAL OR PROBABLE DIVERSION OF SALES, INJURIOUS ASSOCIATION,
MISAPPROPRIATION OF BUSINESS REPUTATION
HONDA MOTORS V. CHARANJIT SINGH PLAINTIFF - “HONDA” FOR MOTORSDEFENDANT – “HONDA” FOR PRESSURE COOKERS.PASSING OFF?YES
COURT HELD SUCH USE OF TRADEMARK “HONDA” IS
CREATING DECEPTION OR CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND SUCH CONFUSION IS CAUSING DAMAGE OR INJURY TO THE BUSINESS, REPUTATION, GOODWILL AND
FAIR NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF.
MEANS ADOPTED FOR PASSING OFF
DIRECT FALSE REPRESENTATION ADOPTION OF OR COLORABLE
IMITATION OF SAME TRADEMARK ADOPTION OF COMPLETE OR ESSENTIAL
PART OF RIVAL TRADER’S NAME – DUNKIN DONUT V DUNKEN TYRE
DEFENCESNON DISTINCTIVENESSDELAY, LACHES, ACQUIESCENCE,
MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS OR FRAUDULENT TRADE
GOODS AND BUSINESSES TOTALLY DIFFERENT
BONAFIDE USEISOLATED INSTANCE
THREAT OF LEGAL POCEEDINGS AND TRADE LIBELTHREAT LIBEL SUIT MAY BE FILED ONLY FOR THREAT FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF REGISTERED MARK
REMEDIES CONTI…CIVIL – INJUNCTION, DAMAGE, PROFIT
CRIMINAL – IMPRISONMENT,FINE, BOTH
ADMINISTRATIVE – ANTON PILLAR ORDER, MAREVA INJUNCTION
OFFENCESFALSIFYING TRADEMARKFALSELY APPLYING A TRADEMARKMAKING OR POSSESSING INSTRUMENTS FOR
FALSIFYING TRADEMARKAPPLYING FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTIONAPPLYING FALSE INDICATION OF COUNTRY OF
ORIGINTAMPERING WITH AN INDICATION OF ORIGINCAUSING ANY OF ABOVE
OFFENCES CONTINUEDSELLING GOODS OR POSSESSING OR
EXPOSING FOR SALE OF GOODS FALSELY MARKED
REMOVING PIECEGOODSFALSELY REPRESENTING TRADEMARK AS
REGISTEREDIMPROPERLY DESCRIBING PLACE OF
BUSINESS AS CONNECTED WITH TRADEMARK OFFICE
FALSIFICATION OF ENTERIES IN REGISTER
THANK YOU
VINTEE MISHRA
Copyright Brain League IP Services Pvt. Ltd. 2009