Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
2K views

Cases On 9 (1) (A)

This document contains summaries of 5 legal cases related to trademarks: 1. The court ruled that a commonly used name cannot be denied trademark registration if it was not previously used as a descriptive term or to define services. The first user of the name has a right to registration. 2. The Supreme Court established that the "likelihood of confusion" test is better for proving trademark infringement cases. The test examines if the claimant's goods/services have a reputation, if the defendant created unintentional confusion, and if the claimant suffered damages. 3. This case defined "distinctive" in relation to trademarks as adapting to distinguish the proprietor's goods from others in the course of trade.

Uploaded by

Dakshita Dubey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views

Cases On 9 (1) (A)

This document contains summaries of 5 legal cases related to trademarks: 1. The court ruled that a commonly used name cannot be denied trademark registration if it was not previously used as a descriptive term or to define services. The first user of the name has a right to registration. 2. The Supreme Court established that the "likelihood of confusion" test is better for proving trademark infringement cases. The test examines if the claimant's goods/services have a reputation, if the defendant created unintentional confusion, and if the claimant suffered damages. 3. This case defined "distinctive" in relation to trademarks as adapting to distinguish the proprietor's goods from others in the course of trade.

Uploaded by

Dakshita Dubey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Sunil Mittal & Anr v.

Darzi On Call, CS (COMM) 1381/2016)


The court has provided a new outlook to the trademark registration of descriptive
marks in India. This decision of the court, of not allowing a person to use a mark,
which was previously used as a descriptive word or defined descriptive services is
welcomed. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court has rendered a significant
standard in establishing principle that if a particular trade name though a common
name has not been in existence then it should not be denied registration. Further it was
also held that the first user of such name shall be allowed registration.
2. The Supreme Court held that ―likelihood of confusion‖ would be a better test of
proving the passing off action. The apex court relied on the Trinity Test devised in the
case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. V Borden Inc. (citation)
1. The goods and services has acquired goodwill and reputation in the market place.
2. Either the Defendant has misrepresented the goods and services intentionally or
unintentionally, which in turn creates confusion in the minds of the public.
3. The claimant has suffered damages due to the misrepresentation.
3. United Iron and steel works vs. GOI, AIR 1967 P H 64
For the purposes of this Act, the expression 'distinctive' in relation to the goods in
respect of which a trade mark is proposed to be registered, means adapted to
distinguish goods with which the proprietor of the trade mark is or may be connected
in the course of trade from goods in the case of which no such connection subsists
either generally or, where the trade mark is proposed to be registered subject to
limitation, in relation to use within the extent of the registration.

4. J.L. Mehta v. Registrar of Trademarks, AIR 1962 Bom 82.

The trademark "SULEKHA" is a Hindi word which has a dictionary meaning i.e. a
person with good handwriting and is therefore, a descriptive word. The Court
observed that since "SULEKHA" is being used in relation to fountain pens, nibs etc, it
was a valid trademark.
5. Living Media India Limited v. Jitender V. Jain and Anr., 2002 VAD (Delhi) 161.
The issue before the court was- whether the name and style of "AAJ TAK" and its
logo is a generic term and as such is not the monopoly of any particular person either
in relation to the news programme or otherwise 5. The court observed that even if the
words "AAJ TAK" are descriptive in nature and even if they have a dictionary
meaning, together it is still coined word of the plaintiff and has acquired a secondary
meaning by virtue of prior, continuous and extensive use and therefore the
combination of the two words "AAJ TAK" cannot be used by any other user.

You might also like