TRADE MARK CASE LAW INDIA
A registered trade mark is infringed if used in the course of
trade by the person other than the registered proprietor or
permitted user of trade mark. The infringement occurs because
such mark used by the one other the registered proprietor or
permitted user is likely to cause confusion in the mind of
public or is likely to cause impression of association with the
registered trade mark and such confusion is caused because of
the identity of such mark with the registered trade mark with
the registered trade mark as also the similarity of goods of
services covered by such registered trade mark. Such confusion
can also occur because of the similarity of such mark to the
registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of goods or
services covered by such registered trade mark. the confusion
would also be caused because a such mark's identity with the
registered trade mark as well the identity of goods or services
covered by such registered trade marks.
Illustrative case laws
on Trademark Infringement
1. Plaintiff was selling cosmetic products
under the registered Trade Mark "Lakme". Defended was using the
Trade Mark "Like-Me" for the same class of products. It was held
that there was striking resemblance between the two wards. The
two words are also phonetically similar. There is every
possibility of deception and and confusion being caused in the
mind of the prospective buyer of the plaintiff's products.
injunction was made permanent (PTC 1996,567).
2. The plaintiffs are registered proprietors of trade marks 'CASTROL'
'INDROL' 'INDROL' 'MONOGRAME' in respect of industrial oils and
greases and also held copyright in INDROL device. Infringement
was alleged on ground of deceptive similarity by the use of
trade mark INDROL with similar colour combination, get up and
lay out in connection with similar product, i.e. brake fluids.
Interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and the
same was confirmed by the High Court (PTC 1995, 37).
3. Plaintiff were registered proprietors of the trade mark 'MITASO',
the defendants used the marks 'META-SHOW'. Infringement was
alleged on the ground that the two mark on the face of it were
deceptively similar phonetically and any ordinary customer could
be easily misled in treating the goods of one as coming from the
source of another, injunction restraining the defendants from
using the trade mark 'META-SHOW' was granted (PTC 1995,105).
4. The party in the trade mark registry made an application for
registration of trade mark "FIXACOL". The opponents were
registered proprietors of trade mark 'FEVICAL' who pleaded
rejection of the application on the grounds of deceptive
similarity and confusion. The application was refused
registration on the above grounds (PTC 1995, 105).
5. The plaintiffs were a reputed manufacturer of dental cream
COLGATE. Defendants use the mark COLGATE with is phonetically
similar to the plaintiff's mark with the deceptively similar
latter in white with red background so as to cause confusion in
the minds of the customer and to pass off its products as
COLGATE. Hence the mark was restrained through injunction (PTC
1995, 389).
6. The Supreme Court in Amritdhara v. Satya Deo observed that
the ordinary purchaser would go more by the overall structure
and phonetic similarity and the nature of medicine he has
previously purchased or has been told about, or about which he
has otherwise learnt and which he want to purchase . The word 'Amritdhara'
were held deceptively similar through registration of 'LAKSHMANDHARA'
was allowed on the basis of honest concurrent user (AIR 1963 SC
453).
7. The Plaintiff seeking injunction against the Defendant from
release of the film under the title "HARI PUTTER" on the ground
of parties trade mark "HARRY POTTER" despite phonetic
similarity, audience of
"HARRY POTTER" is altogether different from that of "HARI
PUTTER" and therefore, no injunction can be granted. Warner
Bros. Vs. Harinder Kohli 2008 (155) DLT Page 56 DHC.
