Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA 2010(42)PTC572(Del)

By

ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products Case, 2010| Case Summary 


Facts

  1. The plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction order restraining the defendant from using a mark that was alleged to be closely similar to and identical to the plaintiff's "WELCOMGROUP" logo.
  2. The plaintiff stated that the logo was an essential part of their various registered trademark in respect of several classes and was being used for their hotel services and variety of ready-to-eat food products.
  3. The disputed logo was used by the defendant over the packets of cigarettes.

Submissions of the Counsel for the Plaintiff

  1. The plaintiff claimed the infringement action, particularly, under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by submitting that all the requirements under S.29(4) were fulfilled.
  2. By referring to the case of "Ramdev Food Products Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors., 2006 they argued that an action for passing off and infringement can also be raised if the get-up of the disputed mark is like to the registered trademark.

Issue

  1. Whether the defendant infringed the registered trademark "WELCOMGROUP of the plaintiff by dilution under S.29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Dilution of a trademark is a species of infringement that protects a registered trademark in case of dissimilar goods. 
  2. S.29(4) provides for protection against dilution if every condition provided below are fulfilled:-
    1. The disputed mark is identical or similar to the registered mark
    2. Injured Mark has a reputation in India
    3. Use of the disputed mark is without due cause
    4. Use of disputed mark takes an unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the registered trademark.
  3. A higher degree of similarity or identity has to be established for an action for dilution because the words in S.29(4) are "identical to or similar with" instead of "deceptively similar" as used in S.29(2). There must be a closest similarity or near identification of the two marks.
  4. The overall or "global" look and not a common element of the two marks shall be compared to find the similarity or identity.
  5. Although the plaintiff established that ITC WELCOMGROUP acquired distinction in the hospitality industry, yet they failed to establish the conditions placed by S.29(4) to prove the infringement by dilution.
  6. The difference between the two products and service ranges is significant.
  7. The plaintiff has not shown that it uses its registered mark for its cigarette brands.
  8. No evidence of the defendant's mark taking an unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the plaintiff's mark.

Decisions

  1. The Court finds no identity or similarity in the overall presentation of the two marks.
  2. The Court finds no linkages between the two marks so to defendant's mark will take an unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the plaintiff's mark.
  3. No injunction order.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more