Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg 128 (2006) DLT 649 : 2006 (32) PTC15 (Del)

N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg, 2006 Case Summary



Facts/Plaint

  1. Both parties were involved in some kind of business of manufacturing and sale of agarbattis.
  2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the packaging of the defendant's six "Dia" products which were alleged to be similar to the plaintiff's "Lia" products. 
  3. Also, it was alleged that the defendant's trademark "Dia" had been deliberately copied from the plaintiff's mark "Lia" to deceive the consumer. Also, the name of the product, price, and quantity of the sticks per pack, and theme and layout packaging were similar.
  4. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant was trying to utilize the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff to pass off its products.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's trademark and its artistic features and labels are identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
  2. Whether the defendants have honestly adopted the trademark and hence are entitled to the benefit of honest and concurrent users.

Arguments of the defendants

  1. The trademark of the defendants was "Lotus Dia", not "Dia".
  2. They adopted the mark "Lotus Dia" bonafide during the course of business.
  3. Both the marks are different in their artistic features and trade dress.

Decisions

  1. The defendant's trademark and its artistic features and labels are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
  2. The defendant deliberately attempted to pass off their goods as the plaintiff's goods, hence the benefit of honest use can't be availed.
  3. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants or anyone acting under them.

Reasoning

  1. The essential ingredient feature of the defendant's mark is "Dia" not "Lotus Dia" because:-
    1. The word "Lotus" is used as a prefix and written in small and less significant font.
    2. Also, the defendant applied for registration of the mark "Dia" only.
  2. Similarity in both the marks and packaging:-
    1. Writing font 
    2. Underlined by a curved line
    3. Phonetic similarity
    4. Colour scheme
    5. Packaging
    6. Use of vernacular scripts of Devnagari, Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu at almost the same position.
  3. The overall impression from the color scheme, arrangement of letters, style of writing of the mark, the general get-up, and trade dress leads to the conclusion that the defendant tried to pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff.
  4. The second comer has to name and dress their product in such a manner as to avoid all likelihood of confusion.
  5. Parle Products Ltd. Case:- To determine the deceptive similarity between the two marks, the broad and essential features of the two have to be considered. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

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

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

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