&w=3840&q=100)
Impact on biz no valid reason to set aside injunction: HC on trademark row
A division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made this clear while hearing an appeal filed by Newgen IT Technologies. The company had challenged a district court order that restrained it from using the trademark 'Newgen', which was already in use by the respondent in the same business domain.
'In the present case, while the appellant has strenuously contended that the injunction has brought its business operations to a standstill and jeopardised its IPO plans, we are not persuaded by this line of argument,' the court held. 'The appellant cannot be permitted to continue deriving commercial benefit from a mark that, in our considered view, is similar to that of the respondent and clearly warrants restraint through injunctive relief.'
Trademark dispute originated after business split
The legal battle stems from a dispute between Newgen IT Technologies (the appellant) and VCARE InfoTech Solutions and Services (the respondent). Both companies operate in the field of software product development in India and had previously entered into a partnership agreement.
After the agreement was terminated, the appellant adopted the name 'NewGen IT Technologies', prompting the respondent to approach the district court, alleging trademark infringement. The lower court found that the name adopted by the appellant was identical to that of the respondent and was likely to mislead or confuse consumers. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued against the appellant, the news report said.
HC upholds finding of 'striking similarity' in marks
In its appeal, Newgen IT Technologies argued that it had been using the mark 'NEWGEN IT' since 2017, both in India and internationally, and that the respondent had raised no objection until the dispute arose. However, the high court sided with the district court, agreeing that the two marks were 'strikingly similar' and that both companies operated in the same sector.
'Coupled with this is their association as partners under the Partnership Agreement. This similarity is capable of causing confusion in the minds of an average consumer, thereby justifying the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff,' the Bench observed.
The court further noted that the appellant began using the term 'NEWGEN' around the time the partnership with the respondent ended. This timing, according to the Bench, raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the adoption, LiveLaw reported.
As the judgment stated, the timing 'cannot be considered as a bona fide adoption".
International use no defence without local reputation
On the argument that the respondent had knowledge of the appellant's use of the mark in other jurisdictions, the court emphasised the territorial nature of trademark rights.
'It must be remembered that trademark protection is territorial in nature; the use of the mark in one jurisdiction does not ipso facto lead to the generation of goodwill or protection in the other jurisdiction,' the court held. It added that protection in another country can only be extended if there is demonstrated use or transborder reputation of the mark in that jurisdiction — criteria the appellant failed to meet, the news report said.
Finding no merit in the arguments advanced by Newgen IT Technologies, the Delhi high court dismissed the appeal, allowing the interim injunction granted by the district court to remain in force.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC bars Urban Electric from using Hero's ‘DESTINY' mark
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero MotoCorp , restraining Urban Electric Mobility and associated entities from using the marks 'DESTINY', 'DESTINY+' and 'DESTINY PRO' for their electric scooters. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on August 13 in a suit filed by Hero MotoCorp alleging trademark infringement , passing off and unfair competition, Bar & Bench reported. Hero MotoCorp told the court it is the prior and registered proprietor of the marks 'DESTINY', 'DESTINI' and 'DESTINI PRIME' under Classes 12 and 37. The company alleged that defendants 1–4, operating as Urban ebikes, were manufacturing and selling scooters under the 'DESTINY' and 'DESTINY+' names, while defendants 5–6, trading as Galaxy EV, were selling and promoting scooters under 'DESTINY' and 'DESTINY PRO' through a commercial arrangement with the first set of defendants. The company further argued that the impugned marks are structurally, phonetically and visually identical to its registered marks, adopted with the intent to ride on Hero's goodwill and reputation. It also submitted that defendants 1–3 had been using the 'HERO' mark, perpetuating misrepresentation and causing potential consumer confusion. Judgement Justice Karia observed that Hero MotoCorp had made out a case for urgent relief. 'A prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the Defendants are allowed to continue to use the Impugned Marks,' the court held. Accordingly, the defendants, their owners, directors, employees and associates have been restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or promoting scooters under the disputed marks, either offline or online, or from using any mark deceptively similar to Hero's 'DESTINY', 'DESTINI' and 'DESTINI PRIME'. Hero was represented by Advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Kanishk Kumar, Deepika Pokharia, Priyansh Kohli and Abhinav Bhalla from Saikrishna & Associates. ( With inputs from Bar & Bench )
United News of India
3 days ago
- United News of India
SC rejects Pernod Ricard's plea against ‘London Pride' whisky; finds no deceptive similarity
New Delhi, Aug 14 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed an interim injunction plea filed by global liquor major Pernod Ricard alleging infringement of its registered whisky trademarks 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by a country-made whisky brand marketed as 'London Pride". A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld concurrent findings of the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had earlier refused to restrain the respondent from using the 'London Pride' mark. The Bench noted that the marks in question cater to the premium and ultra-premium whisky segment, where consumers are 'more discerning' and purchase decisions are made with 'greater care.' Such buyers, the Court observed, are unlikely to be swayed merely by trade dress similarities. 'In the present case, the marks, BLENDERS PRIDE and LONDON PRIDE are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress are materially distinct,' Justice Mahadevan wrote in the judgment. The Court held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris commonly used in the liquor industry and that the dominant components of each mark ('BLENDERS,' 'IMPERIAL BLUE,' and 'LONDON') are entirely different, both visually and phonetically. Reiterating that deceptive similarity does not require exact imitation, the Bench said: 'The proper test is whether the impugned mark, when viewed independently, is likely to create an impression of association or common origin in the mind of the average consumer with imperfect recollection.' The Court further observed, 'In the liquor industry, where advertising is highly restricted, brand recognition rests predominantly on packaging and consumer loyalty. Unless the imitation is deliberate and intended to mislead, the chance of confusion is minimal. The allegation of counterfeiting in the present case appears to be speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.' 'The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks, BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE, to challenge the respondent's mark LONDON PRIDE, constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable.' Calling this a 'piece-meal approach,' the Court noted that apart from the shared use of the term 'PRIDE,' there was no meaningful similarity between the marks. Key elements such as packaging, typography, bottle design, and label layout were 'materially distinct.' The Bench endorsed the reasoning of the MP High Court that consumers in the premium whisky segment are more discerning and unlikely to be confused. 'The products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base. Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief.' While dismissing the appeal, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the interim injunction application and were based solely on materials available at the interlocutory stage. The main commercial suit will proceed independently before the trial court. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
6 days ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court halts action against older vehicles in Delhi-NCR
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an interim order directing that no coercive action be taken against owners of End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) — diesel vehicles over 10 years old and petrol vehicles over 15 years old — operating in Delhi-NCR. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a plea by the Delhi government seeking a review of the court's 2018 order prohibiting such vehicles from plying in the national capital and adjoining National Capital Region areas. Issuing a notice on the Delhi government's application, returnable within four weeks, the Bench ordered that, in the meantime, no coercive steps be taken against the owners on the ground that their vehicles have crossed the specified age limits. Delhi Government seeks scientific review In its plea, the city government has requested the top court to direct the Central government or the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to conduct a comprehensive scientific study. The application argued that the study should assess the actual environmental impact of the age-based ban and evaluate whether the measure contributes meaningfully to air quality improvement in Delhi-NCR. The plea called for re-examining the effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness of the restriction, suggesting an emission-based regulatory framework that considers individual vehicle emissions and roadworthiness rather than relying solely on age. 'The current approach mandates collective compliance, without distinguishing between heavily polluting and well-maintained, low-use vehicles,' the application stated. Impact on citizens and BS-6 vehicles The Delhi government urged the court to allow all fit and non-polluting vehicles to operate in Delhi without an age limit, as is followed in the rest of the country. It said the existing directive causes hardship to middle-class citizens who depend on such vehicles for limited but essential transport needs. It further noted that BS-6 vehicles emit fewer pollutants than BS-4 models and that many vehicles affected by the ban are well-maintained, meet emission norms, and are used infrequently, leading to minimal actual emissions.
