{"id":25298,"date":"2021-02-01T12:49:29","date_gmt":"2021-02-01T07:19:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/?p=25298"},"modified":"2021-02-01T12:49:31","modified_gmt":"2021-02-01T07:19:31","slug":"list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/","title":{"rendered":"List of Important Judgments under Trademark that You Must Know!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">In recent times there has been constant inflation in important trademark judgments in India. Some of the judgments under trademark have been a landmark in terms of the precedents set by Indian Judiciary. Discussed below are historical judgments under <a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/trademark-registration\"><strong>trademark in India<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"985\" height=\"482\" src=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/List-of-Important-Judgments-under-Trademark-that-You-Must-Know.png\" alt=\"List of Important Judgments that You Must Know under Trademark\" class=\"wp-image-25315\" srcset=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/List-of-Important-Judgments-under-Trademark-that-You-Must-Know.png 985w, https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/List-of-Important-Judgments-under-Trademark-that-You-Must-Know-300x147.png 300w, https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/List-of-Important-Judgments-under-Trademark-that-You-Must-Know-768x376.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 985px) 100vw, 985px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title ez-toc-toggle\" style=\"cursor:pointer\">Page Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-toggle-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_Trademark_Infringement\" >Cases on Trademark Infringement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_Passing_Off\" >Cases on Passing Off<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_International_Trademark_Registration\" >Cases on International Trademark Registration<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_Subjected_to_Trademark_Protection\" >Cases Subjected to Trademark Protection<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_Identical_Marks\" >Cases on Identical Marks<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_Proposed_Usage_Basis\" >Cases on Proposed Usage Basis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_Legal_Principle_of_%E2%80%98Prior_User_of_a_Mark\" >Cases on Legal Principle of \u2018Prior\nUser of a Mark\u2019<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Cases_on_%E2%80%93_Similar_Trademark_Issued_For_Different_Items_Does_Not_Amount_To_Breach_of_Law\" >Cases on &#8211; Similar Trademark Issued For Different Items\nDoes Not Amount To Breach of Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/#Concluding_Remark\" >Concluding Remark<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_Trademark_Infringement\"><\/span>Cases on Trademark Infringement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 29 of the Trademark Act, 1999 defines trademark infringement\nas using a mark that is &#8216;identical&#8217; or &#8216;deceptively similar&#8217; to a trademark\nregistered by an unauthorized person. Following are the judgments under\ntrademark infringement, which are given below:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Coca Cola Co. vs.\nBisleri International Pvt. Ltd<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Bisleri originally owned the trademark of the common beverage MAAZA, sold it to Coca Cola in India. Bisleri later applied for the registration of the MAAZA trademark in Turkey and began exporting mango drinks with the trademark of MAAZA. <em><strong>Coca-Cola<\/strong><\/em><sup><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coca-Cola\"><em><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/sup> appealed to Indian courts to ban Bisleri from making drinks, along with damages against Bisleri and infringement of its trademark MAAZA. Coca-Cola was successful in obtaining a temporary injunction against Bisleri for trademark infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cadbury India\nLimited and Ors. vs. Neeraj Food Products<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nplaintiff is a well-known manufacturer of chocolate and confection and has a\nregistered trademark \u2018GEMS &#8216; on its name. The plaintiff reached court for an\ninjunction against the defendant, allegedly selling a product under &#8216;JAMES\nBOND,&#8217; similar to the plaintiff&#8217;s \u2018GEMS &#8216;product in packaging and shape. The\nplaintiff alleged that the product sold with the mark &#8216;JAMES BOND&#8217; was\nmisleading \u2018GEMS &#8216;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court held that the defendants&#8217; products were, in fact, deceptively similar to the plaintiffs, and they granted injunctions prohibiting the defendants from selling the said products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/trademark-registration-and-process-for-trademark-objection\/\">Trademark Registration and Process for Trademark Objection<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_Passing_Off\"><\/span>Cases on Passing Off <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>If a person sells their goods as the goods of another, the trademark\nowner can take action as it becomes a case of passing off. Passing off is used\nto protect the goodwill associated with unregistered trademarks. Following are\nthe judgments under trademark passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court\nafter evaluating the provisions of Trademark Act, 1999 conclusively established\nthat the plaintiff and the defendant trade in the same area or similar\nproducts. The Court has laid down certain criteria for determining the unregistered\ntrademarks:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The nature of the mark (word,\nlabel or overall);<\/li><li>Degree of similarity between\nscars;<\/li><li>The nature of the goods for\nwhich the mark is used;<\/li><li>Equality in nature, character\nand performance of goods of rival traders;<\/li><li>The category of buyers most\nlikely to buy the marked goods;<\/li><li>Method of purchasing or\nordering goods; and<\/li><li>Other circumstances that may be\nrelevant.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_International_Trademark_Registration\"><\/span>Cases on International Trademark Registration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Trademarks are territorial, and therefore, will require separate filings\nin each country where you intend to protect it. There are international\nconventions such as the \u201cMadrid Protocol\u201d which act as a national registration\nsystem for trademark authorize in all other member states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Milmet Oftho\nIndustries &amp; Ors. vs. Allergan Inc<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In this judgment, the appellant, an Indian pharmaceutical company,\nwas barred by the &#8220;Apex Court&#8221; from adopting the trademark &#8216;OCUFLOX&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The \u201cApex Court\u201d said that notwithstanding the mark was neither\nregistered by the defendant in India nor used by the defendant in the Indian\nmarket. It had to be protected as the defendant was the first to enter and\nregister in the world market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision upheld the principle of trans-border reputation. The\nCourt also affirmed that in the field of medicine, any and all possibility of\nconfusion and deception should be stopped in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_Subjected_to_Trademark_Protection\"><\/span>Cases Subjected to Trademark Protection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment under trademark mentioned below is subject to trademark\nprotection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Pidilite Industries\nLimited vs. Poma-Ex Products &amp; Ors <\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In this judgment, the defendant was accused of dishonestly using\n&#8216;KWIK&#8217;, a part of the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark. The defendant was using the\ntrademark KWIKHEAL &#8216;and the product packaging was similar to the plaintiff&#8217;s FEVIKWIK&#8217;\nproduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bombay High Court held that the mark &#8216;KWIK&#8217;, being a major part\nof the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark, could not be adopted by the defendant. The court\nfurther noted that the phonetic similarity between the scars would easily\nmislead and deceive consumers. &#8216;KWIK&#8217; was considered a major part of the\nplaintiff&#8217;s trademark and an injunction prohibited the defendant from using the\nsame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_Identical_Marks\"><\/span>Cases on Identical Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>An identical trademark is classified as any\nmark that is a reproduction of an already registered trademark. For a trademark\nto be deemed as an identical trademark, it does not need to be an exact copy of\nanother mark. Following are the judgments under\ntrademark concerning the identical marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">H&amp;M Hennes\n&amp; Mauritz AB Anr. vs. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Plaintiff, a well known fashion brand with thousands of outlets globally\nhad adopted the \u2018H&amp;M\u2019 trademark in 1970 and it was incorporated in India in\nyear 2005. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had infringed their\ntrademark by depicting their \u2018HM\u2019 mark by using the same red and white colour\ncombination as used by the Plaintiff. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendants argued that their use and adopting the mark was\nimpeccable and the mark stood for the names of its directors. The defendant\nfurther contended that since the plaintiff entered the Indian market much\nlater, his mark did not gain any repute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court passed the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and upheld\nthat in case of a brand having trans-border reputation it is not essential for\nthem to set up outlets in India to secure their trademark in India. Therefore,\nthe defendant was barred from using the mark HM mark or any other misleading\nalteration of the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_Proposed_Usage_Basis\"><\/span>Cases on Proposed Usage Basis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Multinational Corporation cannot allege right on Trademark if they\ndo not use it in India. Following are the judgments under trademark proposed to\nbe used basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_Legal_Principle_of_%E2%80%98Prior_User_of_a_Mark\"><\/span>Cases on Legal Principle of \u2018Prior\nUser of a Mark\u2019<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In this recent judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, the Court\nrecognized the legal principle of a former user of a mark. The court&#8217;s decision\nin the case reiterated the law that the former user of the trademark will\noverride the latter user even if the latter user has registered the trademark. Following\nare the judgments under trademark based on the legal principle of prior user of\na mark<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">M\/s R. J.\nComponents and Shafts vs. M\/s Deepak Industries Ltd<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts of the case-<\/strong> The immediate case was initiated by the Rajiv Kumar, who claimed to\nbe the sole owner of M \/ s. RJ Components and shafts (plaintiff company)\nagainst defendants to prohibit them in any manner using the plaintiff&#8217;s\nregistered trademark NAW.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff alleges that the defendants in the case who are\nengaged in a similar business have recently started manufacturing gear and have\nadopted the trademark exactly \u201cNAW\u201d of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Order Passed by Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Delhi High Court has in this case considered the right of the former\nuser to be a superior right that exceeds the registered owner of the same or\nsimilar trademark. In view of the above facts, the Delhi High Court barred the\nplaintiff from using the NAW mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_on_%E2%80%93_Similar_Trademark_Issued_For_Different_Items_Does_Not_Amount_To_Breach_of_Law\"><\/span>Cases on &#8211; Similar Trademark Issued For Different Items\nDoes Not Amount To Breach of Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>It is no violation of law if two distinctive products were marketed\nby two different industries with a &#8220;deceptively similar&#8221; trademark.\nFollowing are the judgments under trademark for similar trademark issued for\ndifferent items does not amount to breach of law:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Nandini versurs Nandhini<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A bench of Justices AK Sikri and\nAshok Bhushan separated the products for which deceptively similar trademarks\nwere used. Whereas &#8216;Nandini&#8217; was for milk and milk products, animal feed and\nother allied items, &#8216;Nandhini&#8217; trademark was used for meat, fish, poultry, meat\nextracts, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jelly, jam, eggs,\nmilk and milk products, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court stated, &#8220;Nandini \/\nNandhini are a generic name, which in Hindu mythology represents a goddess and\na cow, and is not an invented or coined word for controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Concluding_Remark\"><\/span>Concluding Remark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>With each judgment, the trademark infringement scope is being\nwidened and further clarified by the Indian courts. India&#8217;s domestic scenario is\nalso working with start-ups, prompting many large businesses to exercise their\ntrademark rights against deceptively similar products and brands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>New issues related to international businesses are coming up every day. The requirement of the hour is an international legal framework capable of being universally enforced to prevent and cure trademark infringement worldwide. Kindly associate with the <a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/\"><strong>CorpBiz<\/strong><\/a> expert to know more about the judgments under trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/importance-of-claiming-user-date-in-trademark-registration-application\/\">Importance of Claiming a \u201cUser Date\u201d in Trademark Registration Application<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In recent times there has been constant inflation in important trademark judgments in India. Some of the judgments under trademark have been a landmark in terms of the precedents set by Indian Judiciary. Discussed below are historical judgments under trademark in India. Cases on Trademark Infringement Section 29 of the Trademark Act, 1999 defines trademark [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":25314,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[1490],"acf":{"service_id":"18"},"authorName":"Komal Singh","authorImageUrl":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/processed.jpeg","authorDescription":"Komal Singh is a Legal scholar, having diverse experience in scripting research papers, articles &amp; dissertations, which serves her main interest &amp; competent in drafting legal documents. She has polished her skills in dealing with the matter related to consumer affairs and now building intelligible Legal Content for Corpbiz.","postViews":8146,"readingTime":5,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25298"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25298"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25298\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25316,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25298\/revisions\/25316"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}