assignment of trademark case laws

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Trademarks Supreme Court Cases

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, design, or combination of these elements that identifies the source of products or services. Businesses use these marks to separate what they sell from what competitors offer. The federal government holds the power to regulate trademarks under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, although states may regulate trademarks as well. A trademark must be sufficiently distinctive to be protected. Trademarks are divided into the following categories:

• Fanciful marks : these were invented specifically for trademark purposes
• Arbitrary marks : these do not describe or suggest any part of the product or service attached to them
• Suggestive marks : these suggest the nature of the product or service provided by a business but do not describe it specifically
• Descriptive marks : these clearly describe the product or service, and they are not distinctive (and thus protectable) unless they acquire a secondary meaning
• Generic terms : these are not protectable because they are the main way that people identify all products or services of that type

In addition to marks, trade dress may be protected if it is distinctive and non-functional. This is the look and feel of a product or service, used to identify and distinguish its source. A business with a protectable mark or protectable trade dress can sue for infringement if consumers likely would be confused due to the use of a substantially similar mark or trade dress.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving trademarks, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Two provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit trademark infringement extend only to claims in which the claimed infringing use in commerce is domestic rather than foreign.

Author: Elena Kagan

When the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods, that kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law and does not receive special First Amendment protection.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers.

Author: Neil Gorsuch

A plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's trademark as a precondition to a profits award.

The Lanham Act's prohibition on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment.

The disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons living or dead, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Author: David Souter

A defendant raising the trademark fair use defense does not have a burden to negate any likelihood that the practice at issue will confuse consumers about the origin of the goods or services affected.

Author: John Paul Stevens

When the marks at issue are not identical, the mere fact that consumers mentally associate the junior user's mark with a famous mark is not sufficient to establish actionable dilution. (Dilution is a separate cause of action that allows the owner of a famous mark to prevent the use of similar marks in ways that harm consumer perception of the famous mark.)

Author: Antonin Scalia

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.

Author: Anthony Kennedy

A product feature is functional and thus not protectable as trade dress if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or affects the cost or quality of the article. Also, a functional feature is one the exclusive use of which would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.

In an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the design of a product is distinctive and therefore protectable only upon a showing of secondary meaning.

Author: Stephen Breyer

The Lanham Act permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color.

Author: Byron White

Trade dress that is inherently distinctive is protectable without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

The holder of a registered mark may rely on incontestability to enjoin infringement, and an infringement action may not be defended on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive.

If a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another party to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to a party that it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorily responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.

Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The ownership of a registered trademark consisting of a name designating the owner's goods generally does not carry with it a right to prohibit a purchaser who repacks and sells them (with or without added ingredients) from using the name on their own labels to show the true relation of the trademarked product to the article that they offer.

• Intellectual Property
• Small Business
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Intellectual Property
• Litigation / Trial Practice
• Federal Circuit / U.S. Court of Spec. Jurisdiction

After a trademark achieves federal registration, ownership of the mark may change hands for a variety of reasons. When a trademark owner transfers their ownership in a particular mark to someone else, it is called an assignment. Generally, for an assignment of a trademark to be valid , the assignment must also include the ‘goodwill’ associated with the mark (goodwill is an intangible asset that refers to the reputation and recognition of the mark among consumers). If the assignment of a trademark includes the mark’s goodwill and is otherwise legal, the assignee gains whatever rights the assignor had in the mark. Importantly, this includes the mark’s priority date, which has implications for protecting the mark from potential infringers going forward.

In contrast, if an assignment of a trademark is made without the mark’s accompanying goodwill, then it is considered an assignment “in gross” — and the assignment is invalid under U.S. law. Courts have analyzed whether an assignment was made in gross in a few different ways, but, as is the case with much of trademark law, protecting customers from deception and confusion is the primary motivation behind any analysis for determining the validity of an assignment.

One way courts determine if an assignment was made in gross is through the substantial similarity test. This test essentially examines whether the assignee is making a product or providing a service that is “substantially similar” to that of the assignor, such that consumers would not be deceived by the assignee’s use of the mark. This analysis includes an assessment of the quality and nature of the goods and services provided under the mark post-assignment.  Thus, even if an assignee is using the mark on the same type of goods, but the goods are of lower quality than the goods previously offered by the assignor under the mark, the assignment could be invalid. However, slight or inconsequential changes to goods and services after an assignment are not likely to invalidate the assignment, as such changes are to be expected and would not thwart consumer expectations.

Decisions on the question of substantial similarity are only marginally instructive, as the  test calls for a fact specific inquiry into what the consuming public has come to expect from the goods or services offered under a given mark. For example, courts have noted that despite similarities in services and goods, “even minor differences can be enough to threaten customer deception.” [1] Instances of products or services that were deemed not substantially similar (and thus resulted in invalid assignments) include: an assignee offering phosphate baking powder instead of alum baking powder; [2] an assignee using the mark on a pepper type beverage instead of a cola type beverage; [3] an assignee producing men’s boots as opposed to women’s boots; [4] an assignee using the mark on beer instead of whiskey; [5] and an assignee selling hi-fidelity consoles instead of audio reproduction equipment. [6]

Conversely, case law has also shown that substantial similarity can be found even when products or services do differ in some aspects, if consumers aren’t likely to be confused. For example, the following product changes did not result in a finding of an invalid assignment: an assignee offering dry cleaning detergent made with a different formula; [7] an assignee using thinner cigarette paper; [8] and an assignee selling a different breed of baby chicks. [9]

Whether goods or services are substantially similar may seem like an easy test to apply, but, as case law demonstrates, this fact-intensive analysis can yield results that look strange in the abstract. Disputes involving the validity of a trademark assignment are decided on a case-by-case basis, using the specific facts at hand to determine if consumer expectations are being met under the new use. Thus, while trademarks acquired through assignment can have significant value (and grant the assignee important rights formerly held by the assignor), assignees should be wary of changes to goods or services under an acquired mark that could be seen as deceiving the public.

[1] Clark & Freeman Corp. v. Heartland Co. Ltd. , 811 F. Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

[2] Independent Baking Powder Co. v. Boorman , 175 F. 448 (C.C.D.N.J.1910).

[3] Pepsico, Inc. v. Grapette Company , 416 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1969).

[4] Clark & Freeman Corp. v. Heartland Co. Ltd. , 811 F. Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

[5] Atlas Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis Brewing Co. , 113 F.2d 672 (8 Cir. 1940).

[6] H. H. Scott, Inc. v. Annapolis Electroacoustic Corp. , 195 F.Supp. 208 (D.Md.1961).

[7] Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 538 F.2d 894 (C.C.P.A. 1976).

[8] Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc. , 683 F. Supp. 899 (1988).

[9] Hy-Cross Hatchery, Inc v. Osborne 303 F.2d 947, 950 (C.C.P.A. 1962)

Current Legal Analysis

More from lewis roca rothgerber llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

Assignment and Transmission of Trademark

• Intellectual Property Rights Subject-wise Law Notes
• Aishwarya Agrawal
• May 23, 2023

Assignment and transmission of trademarks involve transferring ownership rights from one party to another. The Trademark Act provides guidelines and conditions for such assignments and transmissions, distinguishing between assignments with or without the goodwill and specifying requirements for registration and documentation.

Meaning of Assignment and Transmission of Trademark

Assignment and transmission of a trademark refer to the legal process by which the ownership rights of a trademark are transferred from one person or entity to another. This process involves the transfer of the exclusive rights associated with the trademark, which can include the right to use, license, sell or enforce the trademark.

The assignment of a trademark involves the complete transfer of ownership from one party to another. In this case, the assignee (the party receiving the trademark rights) assumes full control and responsibility over the trademark, including the right to use it exclusively for their own commercial purposes. The assignor (the party transferring the trademark rights) relinquishes all rights and interests in the trademark.

On the other hand, the transmission of a trademark typically refers to the transfer of ownership rights in situations where the original owner passes away or there is a change in the ownership due to legal proceedings, inheritance or other circumstances. Transmission may occur through the distribution of assets in a will, the settlement of an estate or a court order.

Both registered and unregistered trademarks can be assigned or transmitted. A registered trademark is one that has been officially registered with the relevant trademark office, providing the owner with statutory rights and protection. An unregistered trademark refers to a mark that has not been formally registered but may still possess some degree of protection based on common law or other legal principles.

Types of Assignment and Transmission of Trademark

Complete assignment and transmission.

Complete Assignment refers to the transfer of all rights associated with a trademark from one individual to another. This includes the rights to further transfer the trademark, receive royalties and exercise full control over its usage. For instance, if proprietor ‘X’ sells all rights of a trademark to proprietor ‘Y’, ‘Y’ becomes the exclusive owner with the freedom to use the trademark as desired, transfer it to others, set guidelines for its usage and receive royalties. No approval from ‘X’ is required in this case.

Partial Assignment

Partial Assignment involves the transfer of ownership restricted to specific services or products. For example, if proprietor ‘X’ has a trademark (♛) related to men’s lifestyle products but only wants to assign it to shoes, ‘X’ can transfer the trademark to ‘Z’ with the condition that ‘Z’ can only use it for shoes. ‘X’ retains the right to use the trademark for all other products. This type of transfer is known as a partial assignment.

Assignment with Goodwill

Assignment with Goodwill refers to the transfer of a trademark along with all the associated rights and values from one person to another. For instance, if ‘X’ assigns and transfers their trademark (♛) to ‘Z’ with all rights and values intact, ‘Z’ gains full rights to use the trademark for men’s lifestyle products or any other future products they manufacture.

Assignment without Goodwill

Assignment without goodwill involves the transfer of a trademark in a way that allows its use for purposes other than the original one. For example, if ‘X’, who deals with men’s lifestyle products, assigns and transfers their trademark (♛) to ‘Z’ with the condition that ‘Z’ can use it for any product except men’s lifestyle products.

Conditions for assignment and transmission as given in section 42

Section 42 of the Trademark Act outlines the conditions for the assignment and transmission of a trademark, specifically when it is not associated with the goodwill of a business. According to this section, the assignment or transmission of a trademark without goodwill will only be effective if the assignee applies to the registrar for directions regarding the advertisement of the assignment. 

The assignee must advertise the assignment within the timeframe specified by the Registrar, which should not exceed six months from the date of the assignment or an extended period of three months if permitted by the Registrar.

However, if the trademark is assigned along with the goodwill of the business for specific goods and services, it will not be considered an assignment without goodwill. Additionally, if the assignment includes goods for export or services used outside of India along with the assignment of goodwill, it is permissible.

Restrictions on Assignment of Trademarks

The Trademark Act imposes certain restrictions on the assignment and transmission of trademarks to prevent confusion among users or the general public. These restrictions include

• Restriction on assignment or transmission that would create multiple exclusive rights.
• Restriction on assignment or transmission that would create exclusive rights in different parts of India.

Process of Assignment and Transmission of Trademark (Section 45)

The process for the assignment and transmission of a trademark, as described in Section 45 of the Trademark Act, involves the following steps:

• Application to the Registrar of Trademarks using Form TM-P, along with duly certified original documents.
• The Registrar will review the application and provide a decision within three months. The decision may include informing the applicant about the assignment or requesting additional proof if there are doubts.
• If the assignment is approved, the Registrar will make an entry in the Register, including details such as the name and address of the assignee, the date of the assignment, a description of the rights assigned (if applicable), the basis of the assignment and the date of entry in the register.
• In case of a dispute between the parties regarding the validity of the assignment or transmission, the registrar may refuse to register it until the rights of the parties have been determined.

Assignment and Transmission of Registered Trademark (Section 38)

Section 38 of the Trademark Act states that a registered trademark can be assigned and transmitted, with or without the goodwill of the business associated with it. This can apply to all the goods or services covered by the registered trademark or only to a specific subset of goods or services.

Assignment and Transmission of Unregistered Trademarks (Section 39)

According to Section 39 of the Trademark Act, an unregistered trademark can also be assigned or transmitted, with or without the goodwill of the business concerned.

Benefits of Assignment and Transmission of Trademark

Expansion of business: By assigning and transmitting a trademark, the owner can expand their business by using the same trademark in multiple locations simultaneously. Additionally, partial authority can be given to assign the trademark to more than one person.

Leveraging an established brand : Assigning and transmitting a trademark allows the assignee to benefit from an already established brand in the market, saving them the effort and resources required to create a new brand.

Legal proof: The assignment and transmission of a trademark serve as legal proof in case of any disputes related to trademark usage. The rights and liabilities associated with the trademark are clearly outlined in a legal document.

Monetary benefits: The owner of the trademark can enjoy monetary benefits through the assignment and transmission process, including any financial gains resulting from the assignment or transmission. Furthermore, operating with the same trademark in multiple locations can increase the value of the brand.

Structural Waterproofing and ORS v. Amit Gupta ORS [93 (2001) DLT 496]

In this case, a dispute arose regarding the assignment and transmission of a trademark. The court highlighted that the registrar has the authority to refuse the registration of the assignment and transmission until a decision is made by the competent court. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties. 

However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request for an injunction against the defendant. The court emphasised that a change in the name of the registered proprietor does not automatically render the trademark unsuitable.

Cinni Foundation v. Raj Kumar Shah and Sons [2009 (41) PTC 320 (Del)]

In this case, the trademark “CINNI” was being used by the owner. A deed of assignment had been executed and signed between the parties. However, it was later discovered that the trademark was not registered. The defendant attempted to claim rights over the trademark. The court ruled that according to the law, the assignee acquires no title to the trademark without the registration of the assignment deed. Consequently, the defendant’s claim to the trademark was dismissed.

These cases illustrate the importance of registration and proper documentation in the assignment and transmission of trademarks. Registration provides legal protection and establishes ownership rights, while adherence to the legal requirements ensures the validity and enforceability of the assignment or transmission of the trademark.

Difference between the Assignment and Transmission of the Trademark

Assignment and transmission are two terms often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts according to Section 2 of the Trademark Act. In the case of trademark assignment, there is a transfer of ownership of the registered trademark to another party. On the other hand, in the case of trademark transmission, the original owner retains the rights to the trademark but grants limited rights to a third party for its use.

For instance, let’s consider the example of X, the current owner of the trademark “œ,” who decides to assign the trademark to Y. In this scenario, X relinquishes ownership of the trademark and after a proper assignment process, Y becomes the registered owner with full rights to the trademark.

However, if X chooses to transmit the trademark instead, it means that X remains the original owner of the trademark, but grants limited rights and responsibilities to Y for its use.

You might like

Bhikaji vs State of MP

Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

Doctrine of Blue Pencil

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment

Trademark assignment—How-to guide

Find out more about business management

by   LegalZoom staff

Read more...

Updated on: February 15, 2024 · 10min read

1. Overview

• 2. Do's & don’ts checklist

3. Trademark assignment instructions

A company’s ability to buy and sell property is essential to its long-term life and vitality. Although it does not take up physical space, an excess of intellectual property can burden a company, directing limited funds towards maintaining registrations, defending against third-party claims, or creating and marketing a final product. Selling unused or surplus intellectual property can have an immediate positive effect on a company’s finances, generating revenue and decreasing costs. When it does come time to grow a business, companies looking to purchase property (including trademarks or software) to support their growth must be sure that the seller does, in fact, have title to the desired items. A properly drafted trademark assignment can help in both circumstances. 

A trademark assignment is the transfer of an owner’s property rights in a given mark or marks. Such transfers may occur on their own or as parts of larger asset sales or purchases. Trademark assignment agreements both provide records of ownership and transfer and protect the rights of all parties.

If you follow the enclosed sample and guidelines, you will have a written acknowledgment of the rights and responsibilities being transferred as part of your sale. This will provide essential documentation of ownership and liability obligations, and you will be well on your way to establishing a clear record of title for all of your trademarks. 

2. Do's & don’ts checklist

• A trademark protects names, terms, or symbols used to identify the products of a certain manufacturer or company. This includes brand names like “Coca-Cola” and images like Nike’s famous “swoosh.” A trademark assignment is the transfer of ownership rights in a mark from one party to another. Both the trademark and the goodwill or business associated with it must be conveyed: a transfer without goodwill is considered invalid. Keep this in mind if you revise the language of the enclosed document.
• An assignment is different than a license, which is a grant of permission to use a trademark in some restricted way (e.g., a limited time, specific purpose, particular area, etc.). A transfer of partial rights is not a trademark assignment: do not revise the agreement to limit the reach of the rights being provided.
• A trademark transfer is typically accomplished through a contract, like the written agreement form that follows. However, after the parties have negotiated and signed their agreement, the transfer must be recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The agreement will not be effective if this registration is not made.
• The advantage of selling your trademark outright (and not simply licensing or attempting to develop and market it yourself) is that you are guaranteed payment at the price you and the purchaser have negotiated. On the other hand, that one-time payment is all that you will ever receive for your property: you will no longer have the right to control anyone else’s use of your creation. By using it yourself or offering a temporary license, you retain the potential for future income. However, such income is by no means certain, and your opportunities are paralleled by risk. Before selling all of your rights in a trademark, make sure that this is the best (and most lucrative) approach for you and your company.
• Do not enter into an agreement without completing your due diligence. If you are purchasing a trademark, conduct searches with the USPTO, all 50 states, DBA filings, other government agencies, and online directories to make sure the seller actually has complete and unique rights in the offered property. Although your findings will not guarantee title, you may have protection as an “innocent purchaser” if disputes arise. You might also find critical information about the valuation and breadth of the mark. Consider hiring a professional to help in your investigation: comparing trademarks often requires a specialized understanding of what marks will be considered confusingly similar or deceptive. 
• If you are selling a trademark, make sure you own it. Although this may seem obvious, ownership of intellectual property is rarely clear-cut. For example, you may have a name that you think of as your trademark, but unless you have used it in business, you do not have rights in that mark. Even if you have been using a mark in your business, another company may have started using it before you and have priority rights in that mark. A thorough search of the relevant marketplace and registry office should be conducted before you attempt to sell your trademark.
• Both parties should review the assignment carefully to ensure that all relevant deal points have been included. It is better to be over-inclusive than under-inclusive. Do not assume that certain expectations or terms are agreed to if they are not stated expressly in the document.
• Sign two copies of the assignment, one for you and one for the other party.
• It’s a good idea to have your assignment notarized. This will limit later challenges to the validity of a party’s signature or of the transfer itself.
• If your agreement is complicated, do not use the enclosed form. Contact an attorney to help you draft an assignment that will meet your specific needs. 

The following provision-by-provision instructions will help you understand the terms of your assignment. The numbers and letters below (e.g., Section 1, Section 2, etc.) correspond to the provisions in the agreement. Please review the entire document before starting your step-by-step process. 

• Introduction of parties. Identifies the document as a trademark assignment. Write in the date on which the agreement is signed. Identify the parties and, if applicable, what type of organization(s) they are. Note that each party is given a name (e.g., “Assignor”) that will be used throughout the agreement. The Assignor is the party that is giving (“assigning”) its ownership interest, and the Assignee is the party receiving it.
• Recitals. The “whereas” clauses, referred to as recitals, define the world of the assignment and offer key background information about the parties. In this agreement, the recitals include a simple statement of the intent to transfer rights in the trademark.
• Section 1: Assignment of marks. The assignment and acceptance of the assignment of the trademarks and service marks. Note that the marks being assigned are not described in the agreement itself. The assignment references “Schedule 1,” and explains that the full description is located on that schedule. Be as complete and clear as possible in your description of the property being transferred.  Note too the emphasis placed on the goodwill being sold with the property. Goodwill can be defined as the intangible value of a piece of property (e.g., a brand’s reputation and recognizability). Remember that this is an essential element of a trademark transfer: assignments attempted without goodwill are considered invalid.
• Section 2: Consideration. In most agreements, each party is expected to do something. This obligation may be to perform a service, transfer ownership of property, or pay money. In this case, the Assignee is giving money (sometimes called “consideration”) to receive the Assignor’s property. Enter the amount to be paid, and indicate how long the Assignee has to make that payment after the agreement is signed.
• 3(a): it is the owner
• 3(b): it has not sold or transferred the marks to any third party.
• 3(c): it has the authority to enter the agreement.
• 3(d): it does not believe that the marks have been taken from any third party without authorization (e.g., a knowing copy of another company’s trademark).
• 3(e): it does not know of any permissions that have to be obtained in order for the assignment to be completed. In other words, once the agreement is signed, the assignment will be effective without anyone else’s input.
• 3(f): the marks weren’t created while the creator was employed by a third party. In many cases, if an individual was employed by a company and came up with a product, the company will own that product. This section offers assurance to the Assignee that there are no companies that will make that claim about the marks being sold. If you and the other party want to include additional representations and warranties, you can do so here. 
• 4(a): has the authority to enter the agreement.
• 4(b) has enough funds to pay for the assignment. 
• If you and the other party want to include additional representations and warranties, you can do so here. 
• Section 5: No early assignment. Prevents the Assignee from re-transferring the marks, or using them as collateral for loans, until it has made complete payment of the money due under the agreement. 
• Section 6: Documentation. The Assignor’s promise to help with any paperwork needed to complete an assignment (e.g., filing information about the assignment with the USPTO and transferring document titles). The bracketed phrases make the additional promise that the Assignor will help with transfer paperwork for filings outside of the country. If this is not relevant to your agreement, delete the bracketed phrases.
• Section 7: No further use of marks. Indicates that after the effective date of the agreement, the Assignor will stop using all of the trademarks being transferred and will not challenge the Assignee’s use of those marks.
• Section 8: Indemnification. A description of each party’s future obligations if the trademark is found to infringe on a third party’s rights. There are two options provided, and you should choose the one that best fits with your situation. In the first, the Assignor takes all responsibility for infringement, promising to pay all expenses and costs relating to the claim. In the second, the Assignor makes its responsibilities conditional, greatly limiting its obligations if a claim is brought. Select only one of these options, and delete the other.
• Section 9: Successors and assigns. States that the parties’ rights and obligations will be passed on to successor organizations (if any), or organizations to which rights and obligations have been permissibly assigned.
• Section 10: No implied waiver. Explains that even if one party allows the other to ignore or break an obligation under the agreement, it does not mean that the party waives any future rights to require the other to fulfill those (or any other) obligations.
• Section 11: Notice. Lists the addresses to which all official or legal correspondence should be delivered. Write a mailing address for both the Assignor and the Assignee.
• Section 12: Governing law. Allows the parties to choose the state laws that will be used to interpret the document. Note that this is not a venue provision. The included language will not impact where a potential claim can be brought. Write the applicable state law in the blank provided.
• Section 13: Counterparts/electronic signatures. The title of this provision sounds complicated, but it is simple to explain: it says that even if the parties sign the agreement in different locations, or use electronic devices to transmit signatures (e.g., fax machines or computers), all of the separate pieces will be considered part of the same agreement. In a modern world where signing parties are often not in the same city—much less the same room—this provision ensures that business can be transacted efficiently without sacrificing the validity of the agreement as a whole.
• Section 14: Severability. Protects the terms of the agreement as a whole, even if one part is later invalidated. For example, if a state law is passed prohibiting choice-of-law clauses, it will not undo the entire agreement. Instead, only the section dealing with the choice of law would be invalidated, leaving the remainder of the assignment enforceable.
• Section 15: Entire agreement. The parties’ agreement that the document they’re signing is “the agreement” about the issues involved. Unfortunately, the inclusion of this provision will not prevent a party from arguing that other enforceable promises exist, but it will provide you some protection from these claims.
• Section 16: Headings. Notes that the headings at the beginning of each section are meant to organize the document and should not be considered operational parts of the note.
• Schedule 1: List of trademarks and/or service marks. In order for a trademark assignment to be effective, the marks being transferred must be clearly identified. Be thorough in your description and attach any registrations or samples that you may have. If you do include samples, reference the inclusion of those samples in the schedule (e.g., “See attached drawing.”).

You may also like

Why do I need to conduct a trademark search?

By knowing what other trademarks are out there, you will understand if there is room for the mark that you want to protect. It is better to find out early, so you can find a mark that will be easier to protect.

October 4, 2023 · 4min read

How to write a will: A comprehensive guide to will writing

Writing a will is one of the most important things you can do for yourself and for your loved ones, and it can be done in just minutes. Are you ready to get started?

February 9, 2024 · 11min read

Catch up locals' news in English

Employee checks have been completed at the Wildberries warehouse in Elektrostal

2024-03-27T13:01:19.471Z

Highlights: Employee checks have been completed at the Wildberries warehouse in Elektrostal. 38 warehouse workers will undergo additional verification to clarify the data with law enforcement agencies. The warehouse continued to operate as normal. Last year, law enforcement officers in the Moscow region detained 16 migrants due to their violation of migration laws. The checks were carried out by the police and the Russian National Guard at one of Wildberries sorting centers in Elektrstal. The verification of documents at the warehouse has been completed, the company says.

Employee checks have been completed at the Wildberries warehouse in Elektrostal, the company reported.

“The verification of documents as part of the work of law enforcement agencies at the warehouse in Elektrostal has been completed,” the statement says.

It is clarified that 38 warehouse workers will undergo additional verification to clarify the data with law enforcement agencies. The rest returned to their duties. The warehouse continued to operate as normal.

Earlier it became known that the police and the Russian National Guard began checking the passport regime and work permits at one of the Wildberries sorting centers in Elektrostal.

Last year, law enforcement officers in the Moscow region detained 16 migrants in Elektrostal, Moscow Region, due to their violation of migration laws.

Source: russiart

All news articles on 2024-03-27

You may like

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

Trademark Assignment: All You Need to Know

This article on ‘Assignment of Trademarks: All you need to know’ was written by Shashanki Kaushik , an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the assignment of trademarks in India, focusing on the legal framework, relevant legislation, landmark judgements, and practical considerations. Understanding the nuances of trademark assignment is vital for businesses seeking to protect their intellectual property rights. In India, this process is governed by various laws, including the Trade Marks Act of 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules of 2017. This article explores the intricacies of trademark assignment, touching upon key aspects, legal provisions, and notable case law.

Assignment of Trademarks : Concept and Laws

Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 2(1)(b): Definition of Assignment: The Act defines ‘assignment’ as the transfer of ownership, either with or without the goodwill of the business.

Section 37: Requirements for Assignment: This section outlines the essential requirements for a valid trademark assignment, including the need for the assignment to be in writing and signed by both parties.

Trade Marks Rules, 2017, Rule 68: Application for Assignment: Rule 68 specifies the procedure for filing an application for the assignment of trademarks, along with the prescribed form and fees.

Types of Trademark Assignment

• Complete Assignment- A complete assignment involves the transfer of both the trademark and the associated goodwill.
• Partial Assignment- Partial assignment entails the transfer of the trademark without the goodwill of the business.
• Assignment with Goodwill- Assignments that include goodwill are more common and ensure the new owner can benefit from the established reputation and customer base.
• Assignment without Goodwill- Assigning a trademark without goodwill is less common and may occur when the assignor intends to retain the business’s reputation.

Legal Procedures for Trademark Assignment

• Application to Registrar: The assignor and assignee must file a joint application with the Registrar of Trademarks for the assignment’s approval.
• Advertisement and Opposition: After acceptance, the Registrar will advertise the assignment application. Interested parties have the opportunity to oppose the assignment within the stipulated period.
• Issuance of Certificate: Upon successful completion of the assignment process, the Registrar issues a certificate, signifying the new owner’s rights over the trademark.

Landmark Judgments

• Ravi Kamal Bali v. Kala Tech and Entertainment (P) Ltd.

This case reaffirmed that an assignment without goodwill does not affect the validity of the assignment.

• Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Dalia

In this judgement, it was held that the assignee could enforce trademark rights against third parties, even without registering the assignment.

Practical Considerations

• Due Diligence : Both parties should conduct thorough due diligence before entering into an assignment agreement, ensuring the trademark’s validity and reputation.
• Clear Agreement : The assignment agreement must be clear and comprehensive, specifying the terms, conditions, and considerations involved.
• Record Keeping : Maintaining accurate records of the assignment is crucial for future reference and potential disputes.
• Post-Assignment Compliance : The assignee must ensure compliance with ongoing trademark maintenance , including renewals and protection against infringement.

Tax Implications of Trademark Assignment

Trademark assignment can have significant tax implications for both parties involved. The consideration received or paid for the assignment may be subject to capital gains tax or other taxes, depending on the specific circumstances and applicable tax laws. It is crucial for both parties to seek professional tax advice to ensure compliance with tax regulations.

Licensing vs. Assignment

While trademark assignment involves the complete transfer of ownership, licensing allows the owner (licensor) to grant permission to another party (licensee) to use the trademark under specific terms and conditions. Licensing gives more control to the trademark owner and allows for greater flexibility in terms of use, territory, and duration. Assignment, on the other hand, transfers all rights and responsibilities to the assignee, including the duty to protect and enforce the trademark.

Franchising and Trademark Assignment

Franchising often involves the assignment of trademarks to franchisees. This allows franchisees to operate under a recognized brand, benefiting from the established reputation and marketing efforts of the franchisor. Franchise agreements typically include detailed provisions regarding trademark usage, quality control, and territorial rights. Careful consideration of trademark assignment is essential in the franchising context to maintain brand consistency and protect the trademark’s value.

International Enforcement of Trademark Assignment

Enforcing trademark assignments across international borders can be challenging due to varying legal systems and regulations. Businesses engaging in cross-border trademark assignments should consider international treaties such as the Madrid Protocol and the Paris Convention, which provide mechanisms for protecting trademarks in multiple countries. Additionally, legal counsel with expertise in international trademark law is essential to navigate the complexities of enforcing trademark assignments globally.

International Perspective

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883): India, as a signatory to the Paris Convention, recognizes the principle of national treatment for foreign trademark owners, providing a basis for international trademark assignment.

TRIPS Agreement (1994): The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), sets minimum standards for the protection of trademarks and includes provisions related to trademark assignment.

International Trademark Assignment

Madrid Protocol : Under the Madrid Protocol, businesses can efficiently protect their trademarks in multiple countries by filing a single international application. India became a member of the Madrid Protocol in 2013, facilitating international trademark assignments for Indian businesses.

International Trademark Assignment Case Study: Coca-Cola : Coca-Cola’s global presence is a prime example of an effective international trademark assignment. Through careful planning and legal strategies, the company has maintained consistent branding worldwide.

Trademark assignment is a vital aspect of intellectual property management in India. It provides opportunities for businesses to monetize their assets or expand their market presence. However, navigating the legal framework, complying with procedures, and safeguarding interests require careful consideration. As demonstrated through relevant legislation and case law, understanding the intricacies of trademark assignment is indispensable for both assignors and assignees in India.

List of References

• Mayashree Acharaya, ‘Assignment of Trademark’, CLear Tax, 22 February 2022, available at: https://cleartax.in/s/ass i gnment-of-trademark
• ‘Assignment and Transmission of Rights’, Selvam & Selvam, available at: https://selvams.com/kb/in/trademarks/assignment/
• ‘Trademark Assignment’, Corpbiz, available at: https://corpbiz.io/trademark-assignment

Join Our Community

AI Summary to Minimize your effort

Assignment of Trademark

Updated on : Feb 22nd, 2022

Trademark proprietors can transfer trademarks similarly to how they can transfer physical properties. One of the ways to transfer a trademark is through an assignment. Assignment means transferring rights, interests, titles and benefits from one person to another. Assignment of a trademark means to transfer the owner’s right in a trademark to another person.

The transferring party is called the assignor, and the receiving party is called the assignee. Section 2(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that assignment means an assignment of a trademark in writing by the act of the concerned parties. Both unregistered and registered trademarks can be assigned with or without the goodwill of the business.

Who can Assign a Trademark?

Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that the person registered as proprietor of trademark in the register of trademarks has the power to assign a trademark and receive consideration for such assignment. Thus, a trademark proprietor can assign a trademark to another person.

Kinds of Trademark Assignment

The different kinds of trademark assignments are as follows:

Complete Assignment  

The trademark proprietor transfers all rights in the trademark to another person, including the right to earn royalties, to further transfer, etc. 

For example: X is the proprietor of brand ‘ABC’. X assigns his trademark ‘ABC’ completely through an agreement to Y. After this, X will not have any rights with respect to the brand ‘ABC’.

Partial Assignment

The trademark proprietor assigns the trademark to another person with respect to only specific services or goods. The transfer of ownership in the trademark is restricted to specific services or products.

For example: X is the proprietor of a brand ‘ABC’ used for sauces and dairy products. X assigns the rights in the brand ‘ABC’ with respect to only dairy products to Y and retains the rights in the brand  ‘ABC’ with respect to sauces.

Assignment with Goodwill of Business  

The trademark proprietor assigns the rights, entitlements and values associated with a trademark to another person. When the trademark is assigned with goodwill, the assignee can use the trademark for any class of goods or services, including the goods or services which were already in use by the assignor. 

For example: X is the proprietor of ‘Sherry’ brand relating to hair products. X assigns the brand ‘Sherry’ to Y with goodwill. Y will be able to use the brand ‘Sherry’ with respect to food products and any other products they manufacture.

Assignment without the Goodwill of Business  

The trademark proprietor assigns to the assignee rights and entitlements in a trademark with respect to the products or services that are not in use. The assignor restricts the transfer of the rights in the trademark in the case of assignment without goodwill. The assignor assigns with the condition that the assignee is not entitled to use the trademark relating to the goods or services already in use by the assignor.

For example: X is the proprietor of a brand ‘Sherry’ that he uses for manufacturing and selling bags. X assigns the brand ‘Sherry’ without goodwill to Y. Y will be able to use the brand ‘Sherry’ for any other product other than bags.

Pre-Requisites for Assignment of Trademark

• The trademark assignment should be in writing.
• The assignment should be between two identifying parties, i.e. assignor (owner of the trademark) and the assignee (buyer of the trademark).
• The assignor should have the intent and must consent for the trademark assignment.
• The trademark assignment should be for a proper and adequate consideration (amount).

Trademark Assignment Agreement

The proprietor of a trademark generally assigns it to the assignee through a properly executed trademark assignment agreement. The trademark assignment agreement should be drafted keeping the following points in mind:

• The rights of the trademark should not be detrimentally affected due to the obligations contained in the agreement.
• The decision and requirement regarding whether the assignment is with or without the goodwill of the business must be explicitly mentioned.
• The agreement should show a clear purpose of the transaction/assignment.
• The geographical scope of the location where the assignee possesses the values and rights in the trademark must be mentioned.
• The transfer of the right to collect and sue damages for future and past infringements must be mentioned.
• The agreement should be duly executed, i.e. it must be stamped and notarised as per the applicable Stamp Act.
• The signatures and witnesses must be mentioned.
• The place and date of agreement execution must be mentioned.
• The date and day of the assignment along with the parties to the assignment must be mentioned.
• The agreement should mention whether or not it would be binding on the legal heirs of the assignor and assignee.

Process of Assignment of Trademark

The process of assignment of the trademark in India are as follows:

• The proprietor of the trademark (assignor) assigns his/her rights in the trademark through a trademark assignment agreement to the assignee.
• The assignor or assignee, or both, can make a joint request to register the assignment by filing an application of a trademark assignment in Form TM-P to the register of trademarks.
• Form TM-P must be filed with the registrar of the trademark within six months from the date of the assignment. The application can be filed after six months of assignment, but the fee may vary accordingly.
• The assignment must be advertised in such a manner and within the period directed by the registrar of trademarks.
• The copy of the advertisement and the registrar’s direction should be submitted to the office of the registrar of trademarks.
• Upon the receipt of the trademark assignment application (form TM-P) and required documents, the registrar of trademarks will register the assignee as the proprietor of the trademark and record the specifications of the assignment in the register.

Documents Required for Assignment of Trademark

The following documents must be submitted to the registrar of trademark along with form TM-P:

• Trademark assignment agreement.
• Trademark certificate.
• NOC from the assignor.
• Identification documents of the assignor and assignee.

Restrictions on Assignment of Trademark

The Trademarks Act, 1999 provides the following restrictions on trademark assignment:

Parallel Use Restriction  

The assignor cannot assign a trademark when the assignment results in the creation of exclusive rights in different persons with relation to the same or similar products or services and will likely deceive or cause confusion. Thus, multiple exclusive rights relating to the same/similar products or services in different persons are not allowed. It prevents the parallel use of a trademark by more than one person in relation to the same/similar products or services.

Multiple Territorial Use Restriction  

The assignor cannot assign a trademark when the assignment results in the creation of an exclusive right in different persons in various parts of India relating to the same/similar products or services. The assignor cannot assign a trademark when the assignment results in the creation of an exclusive right in different persons in various parts of India relating to the same/similar products or services sold or delivered outside India. Thus, assigning rights in different parts of India relating to the same/similar products or services is not allowed.

Benefits of Trademark Assignment

• The trademark assignment enables the trademark proprietor to encash the value of his/her brand.
• The assignee obtains the rights of an already established brand due to trademark assignment.
• The trademark assignment supports the assignor and the assignee to expand their respective businesses.
• The trademark assignment agreement enables the assignor and the assignee to establish their legal rights in case of any dispute.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.

About the Author

Mayashree Acharya

I am an advocate by profession and have a keen interest in writing. I write articles in various categories, from legal, business, personal finance, and investments to government schemes. I put words in a simplified manner and write easy-to-understand articles. Read more

Quick Summary

Was this summary helpful.

Clear offers taxation & financial solutions to individuals, businesses, organizations & chartered accountants in India. Clear serves 1.5+ Million happy customers, 20000+ CAs & tax experts & 10000+ businesses across India.

Efiling Income Tax Returns(ITR) is made easy with Clear platform. Just upload your form 16, claim your deductions and get your acknowledgment number online. You can efile income tax return on your income from salary, house property, capital gains, business & profession and income from other sources. Further you can also file TDS returns, generate Form-16, use our Tax Calculator software, claim HRA, check refund status and generate rent receipts for Income Tax Filing.

CAs, experts and businesses can get GST ready with Clear GST software & certification course. Our GST Software helps CAs, tax experts & business to manage returns & invoices in an easy manner. Our Goods & Services Tax course includes tutorial videos, guides and expert assistance to help you in mastering Goods and Services Tax. Clear can also help you in getting your business registered for Goods & Services Tax Law.

Save taxes with Clear by investing in tax saving mutual funds (ELSS) online. Our experts suggest the best funds and you can get high returns by investing directly or through SIP. Download Black by ClearTax App to file returns from your mobile phone.

Cleartax is a product by Defmacro Software Pvt. Ltd.

Company Policy Terms of use

Data Center

SSL Certified Site

128-bit encryption

• Starting a Business
• Growing a Business
• Small Business Guide
• Business News
• Science & Technology
• Money & Finance
• For Subscribers
• Write for Entrepreneur
• Entrepreneur Store
• United States
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• South Africa

Copyright © 2024 Entrepreneur Media, LLC All rights reserved. Entrepreneur® and its related marks are registered trademarks of Entrepreneur Media LLC

Is the Company Tagline You Want to Use Already Someone Else's Trademark? Here's How to Avoid Legal Issues and Infringement. Emphasizing the importance for small business owners to ensure that their chosen company taglines or trademarks are not already registered, to avoid potential legal issues and infringement on someone else's intellectual property.

By C. Lee Smith • Apr 8, 2024

Key Takeaways

• Before using a brand name or slogan, it's crucial to conduct thorough research to ensure it's not already trademarked or confusingly similar to existing trademarks.
• Registering trademarks offers legal protection and makes it easier to establish brand recognition and goodwill in the marketplace.
• Trademark holders have a duty to protect their intellectual property. Ignoring unauthorized use can weaken their ability to enforce their rights and may lead to loss of revenue and customer confusion.

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

If you have developed a new product or service, the next step is to develop a memorable brand, or trademark and slogan. Before you begin displaying these on product packages or your website, take a few minutes to be sure each is available for use. If you don't, you may run into an expensive problem in the future.

I'm talking about trademarks and the risk of infringing on someone else's legal rights.

It takes only a few minutes to check whether the brand for your new product is already someone else's trademark or confusingly similar to a trademark in use. Start by quickly searching Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and both of the major mobile app stores — Apple App Store and Google Play.

Don't stop there. To ensure the brand name or slogan is available, run a free search on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website.

You don't have to register your brand or trademark to start using it. In fact, the USPTO won't register your trademark unless and until you have products in the marketplace that bear that trademark. Trademark rights stem from your use of the trademark, not from registration.

This is good practical advice for any entrepreneur. But let me state upfront, for legal advice, you'll want to contact a good attorney specializing in intellectual property (IP).

Related: Startups Must Protect Their Trademark. Here's How and Why

The value of registered trademarks

You may be surprised to learn that you can register taglines and slogans as trademarks to protect your intellectual property. A registered trademark makes it easier to brand products and services and build up goodwill and recognition in the marketplace. Unique trademarks also reduce confusion.

Business owners feel so strongly about protecting their IP that they submitted over 181,000 trademark applications in Q1 2024. Securing a registration for your trademark from the federal government requires paying a filing fee and either using an online service or hiring specialty attorneys to handle the paperwork — I recommend the latter. In addition, trademark owners must renew their trademark registrations every 10 years.

Trademark violation

As a small business owner, you may decide to start using a slogan you like without checking to see if it's available. Perhaps you think it'll be fine if you only serve a local market and the owner of the trademark operates somewhere else. But if the name or phrase has already been registered for use on or in connection with a product or service that's related to yours, you may be guilty of trademark infringement .

You might believe it's clever to mimic a famous brand or registered slogan by making a small tweak. Unfortunately, courts often treat that usage as an infringement if the relevant public assumes, mistakenly, that your product or service is endorsed or sponsored by the company holding the registration or that you and your business are somehow affiliated with that business.

You may wonder whether the threat of an infringement action matters. It does. If you are caught using a slogan that is the subject of or confusingly similar to someone else's registered trademark , don't be lulled into thinking you can ask for forgiveness instead of permission. Most business owners will be vigilant in protecting their investments. After all, they have spent years working to ensure that consumers or other target audiences associate the slogan with their company.

Related: All You Need to Know About Using Trademarks for Your Business

Trademark holders are required to protect them

Part of the responsibility of owning a trademark is protecting its use . If you don't, you lose your ability to enforce it when a direct competitor tries to steal it from you or uses a confusingly similar trademark. So, don't blame the trademark holders for sending you an email or a cease-and-desist notice. It's their obligation — and it's your misstep. The worst thing you can do is ignore this kind of communication and hope it goes away.

I have invested significantly in trademarks as a way to brand my business. My registered slogans appear on my company's online and email marketing collateral. I've SEO-optimized my taglines to rank when potential customers are seeking the solutions we sell.

I recently stumbled upon a business that was using one of my trademarks in an app store.

When consumers search for my trademark, they may click the link that will lead them to a different app. That outcome, leading to a potential loss of revenue and misled customers, is exactly the kind of situation trademark rules are designed to protect against.

In this case, I proceeded with the assumption of positive intent. To address the problem, I wrote the infringers an email, explained what I discovered and asked them to stop using my trademarked product name. Fortunately, they agreed to cease and desist.

Unfortunately, not all trademark violators respond so positively. In another situation, a direct competitor ignored my polite email messages regarding their illegal use of my registered trademark.

I was particularly concerned in this case because there was a real risk of confusing potential customers. When I pointed out this concern, the violators did not apologize. Instead, they argued that there would be no confusion in the marketplace.

My next step was to ask our legal counsel to reach out and explain the infringement. We continue to vigorously defend against this violation.

Related: Do You Need to Copyright Your Logo? Here's What You Need to Know.

If you, as a business owner, intend to use a certain wording, design, logo or slogan as a way to brand your product, take a few minutes to ensure that it's available and is not confusingly similar to someone else's trademark. Even better, develop and register your wording, design or logo.

The law of trademarks protects the intellectual property of the owner. Avoiding customer and revenue loss are the primary goals. Regardless of whether the illegal use occurs in the local market or on a national scale, or is accidental or intentional, entrepreneurs must be careful to avoid using someone else's trademark or something that is confusingly similar.

Entrepreneur Leadership Network® Contributor

CEO of SalesFuel and Certified Behavioral Analyst

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Editor's Pick Red Arrow

• A Student in an Ivy League University's Most Popular MBA Leadership Class Asked a Tough Question: What If Your Boss's Downfall Is Necessary to Get Ahead?
• Lock Zillow Co-Founder Shares a 'Misunderstood' Truth About Starting, Funding and Selling Your Company
• Lisa Vanderpump Says If You Want to Run a Business, Get Some Thicker Skin
• Lock These Are the 10 Best States for Starting a Side Hustle , New Research Reveals
• Popular Appetite Suppressant Ozempic Can Be Made for Less Than $5 a Month , New Research Suggests
• Lock Bankruptcy Isn't a Sign of Failure — It's a Strategy. Here's Why It Might Be the Right Move for You .

Most Popular Red Arrow

This insurance agent started a side hustle inspired by nostalgia for his home state — now it earns nearly $40,000 a month.

After moving to New York City, Danny Trejo started a business to stay in touch with his roots — literally.

Take Stock of Your Investment Options With This $23.99 Masterclass

Find out how to read candlestick charts and trade smarter.

Starbucks Wants to Make Its Stores Quieter — Here's How the Coffee Company Is Making It Happen

Starbucks plans to introduce about 650 new stores and renovate about 1,000 with sound-absorbing ceiling panels by October.

5 Innovative Ways to Give Your Customers the Personalized Experiences They Want

How to provide unique, personalized experiences that enhance customer satisfaction, foster brand loyalty and boost revenue.

Those Super Bowl Dunkin' Tracksuits Still Haven't Shipped: 'Communication Has Been Nonexistent'

The tracksuits sold out on the day of Super Bowl LVIII in February.

How Small Businesses Can Leverage Big Data For Big Results

Whether you're just starting out or looking to scale your business, understanding and utilizing big data can be a game-changer in your entrepreneurial journey.

Successfully copied link

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Recap 2021- indian trademark case laws.

This post provides a summary of Indian Trademark Cases for the year 2021

El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an Ex-parte Injunction against use of the trademark ‘Albaik’ for restaurants and related services. The Plaintiff in the case was the Albaik Group based out of Saudi Arabia, which started its business in 1986. The Plaintiff briefly operated under the mark, Albaik, in India between 2017 and 2020, and shut down its operations due to the COVID lock downs. It had several trademark registrations over the mark, Albaik, in word and logo forms.

The Defendants in the case were offering franchises over the Plaintiff’s mark by charging a franchise fee of five (5) percent, and details of the same were placed on the Defendants’ websites and social media pages. Convinced with the prima facie case of the Plaintiff, the Court granted the Ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.

Citation: El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr, Decided by the Delhi High Court on 4th June, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99016397/

United Spirits Limited vs Som Fragrances Private Limited and Ors.

In this case, United Spirits filed an application for ad interim injunction with respect to use of its well-known trademark, SIGNATURE, by the Defendants for Gutka. The parties had earlier entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to use of the said mark for tobacco and related products by the Defendants. United Spirits argued that the Defendants had breached the settlement agreement and related undertaking, which made the settlement invalid. The Court disagreed and stated that actions were taken by parties with respect to the trademark applications filed after the settlement, which made the agreement valid. Acknowledging that well known marks get broader protection, the Court asked the Defendants to use the trademark, Signature, in line with the settlement agreement. It did not injunct the Defendants from using the mark for Gutka.

Citation: United Spirits Limited vs Som Fragrances Private Limited and Others., Decided by Delhi High Court on 28th April, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155080630/ .

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and Anr. V/S. Maa Tara Trading Co. and Ors

In this case, the Calcutta High Court passed an interim order against the Defendants, restraining them from using the trademark ‘Amul’ in connection with their products. The case was instituted by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., who are the proprietors of the trademark ‘Amul’. It was contended in the plaint, that the Defendants incorporated the ‘Amul’ trademark with a deceptively similar font in the labels of candles marketed by them, which was alleged to be an act of trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs pointed out that the ‘Amul’ trademark was recognised as a well-known mark by the Trademark Registry, and as the Defendant’s products were being sold at cake shops and confectionaries, there exists a high likelihood that consumers would associate such infringing products with the Plaintiff. The Calcutta High Court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from using the ‘Amul’ mark until the disposal of the suit.

Citation: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and Anr. V/S. Maa Tara Trading Co. and Ors. [G.A./1/2020 in CS./107/2020], Decided by the Calcutta High Court on 22nd March, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148365026/

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals … vs Micro Labs Limited and Anr.

In this case, the Bombay High Court granted an ex parte injunction with respect to the word and label marks, Dexorange, and trade dress of the bottle. The trademarks were being used for folic acid supplements for more than 50 years, and the Plaintiff held several registrations with respect to its trademarks. The Defendants in this case were selling products under the name ‘Ferri Orange,’ though a permanent injunction was earlier granted against one of them. As the Plaintiff had a prima facie case, the trademarks and trade dress were copied, and as Defendants behaved dishonestly, the Court granted an ex parte injunction against them.

Citation: Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals … vs Micro Labs Limited And Anr, Decided by Bombay High Court on 14 June, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45913753/

Sulphur Mills Limited vs Virendra Kumar Saini

The Bombay High Court in this case granted an interim injunction against use of the mark, Fortis Royal, by the Defendant. The Plaintiff in the case held a trademark over Fortis under which it sold sulphur products. On comparing the packaging, the Court came to the conclusion that the Defendant had lifted the Plaintiff’s packaging and trademark representation. The Court pointed out that change of one vowel will not make the Defendant’s use of the mark non-infringing.

Citation: Sulphur Mills Limited vs Virendra Kumar Saini, Decided by the Bombay High Court on 14 June, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14684884/

M/S Sri Tulasi Industries vs M/S Sri Sapthagiri Industries

In this case, the Plaintiff/Appellant challenged the order of the District Court in vacating the interim injunction with respect to its trademark, Tasty Gold, before the Telangana High Court. The Defendant/Respondent in the case was using the trademark, Tasty Drops and different suffix variations. Both were using the trademarks for edible oils. After reviewing the facts, the Court reinstated the interim injunction as the prefixes were similar, products were similar, and as the Plaintiff’s products had acquired goodwill in the market. The Court reasoned that the Defendant should not be permitted to ride on Plaintiff’s goodwill during the pendency of the suit.

Citation: M/S Sri Tulasi Industries vs M/S Sri Sapthagiri Industries, Decided by Telangana High Court on 9 June, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158670689/

Sony Corporation vs. K. Selvamurthy

In this case, Sony Corporation filed a trademark infringement suit claiming dilution of its well-known SONY trademark against a sole proprietor running a tours and travels business under the name, Sony Tours and Travels. After analyzing the facts before it, the District Court came to the conclusion that the Defendant did not take unfair advantage of, or cause detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the Plaintiff’s SONY mark. The Court came to this conclusion as Sony Corporation’s business is limited to electronics and media, which could be differentiated from the tours and travels business of the Defendant. The Court also noted that the use of the word, Sony by the Defendant did not cause any confusion among the consumers. It also took note of the inordinate delay of the Plaintiff in approaching the Court, and granted Defendants Rs. 25, 000/- as costs.

Citation: Sony Corporation Vs. K. Selvamurthy, Decided by Bangalore District Court on 18th June, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22176292/

M/S. Dabur India Limited vs. Bison Laboratories Private…

In this case, the Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction against the use of the mark, ODOSOL, by the Defendant for cleaning preparations. The Plaintiff had a registered trademark over ODOPIC. After citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court came to the conclusion that the mark, ODOSOL, was confusingly and deceptively similar to the mark, ODOPIC. The Court took note of the fact that an injunction was operating against the Defendant for about twenty years while granting the permanent injunction.

Citation: M/S.Dabur India Limited vs Bison Laboratories Private …, Decided by Madras High Court on 22 June, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171318470/

V3 Events And Entertainments … vs V3 Entertainments/V3 Artists

In this case, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for using its trademark, V3, on social media platforms and to carry out their business. After reviewing the facts, the District Court came to the conclusion that the trademark usage by the Defendants was deceptive, and that such usage was likely to cause confusion among consumers seeking wedding and event management services. The Court therefore restrained the Defendants from using the V3 trademark on websites, Facebook, Instagram, Google Plus, and other social media platforms in addition to a general restraint from using the Plaintiff’s mark.

Citation: V3 Events And Entertainments … vs V3 Entertainments/V3 Artists, Decided by a District Court in Delhi on 1 July, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7857343/

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Cipla Limited

In this case, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction before the Madras High Court against the Applicant/Defendant for infringement of its copyright and trademark. The Court herein, granted an interim injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Henceforth, the Applicant/Defendant filed three applications with a plea to vacate the interim relief granted on grounds of urgency. The plea was based on the fact that the drugs were of a huge amount, carried an expiry date of 1 year, and were in demand because of the ongoing pandemic as they helped in relieving the Covid-19 symptoms. The Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for continuance of the interim order as the balance of convenience continued to be in their favour. While holding so, the Court pointed out that they cannot allow a party to violate another person’s IPR, notwithstanding the fact that the country was facing an unprecedented medical emergency. The Court upheld the interim order and held that it shall continue to remain in force subject to the final decision of the suit.

Citation: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. Cipla Limited … Decided by Madras High Court in May, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95848712/

Frankfinn Aviation vs Fly High Institute & Ors.

In this case the trademark involved was “Fly High”, the Delhi High Court granted an Ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, and restrained the Defendant from using the mark on its websites, social media platforms or otherwise. The Court in a short observation pointed out that there was a prima facie case because the Plaintiff was using the trademark from 2007 while the Defendant was using only from 2018. It pointed out that irreparable harm would be caused if interim relief was not granted, and therefore proceeded with its order.

Citation: Frankfinn Aviation … vs Fly High Institute & Ors, Decided by Delhi High Court on 5 July, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32074880/

Cross Fit LLC vs Mr. Renjith Kunnumal & Anr.

The Plaintiff herein used ‘CrossFit’, a registered word and device mark, on a global basis for fitness & training services as well as its domain name  www.crossfit.com . The Defendants were found using the name “SFC CROSSFIT” while imparting identical gym and fitness services, in their advertisements, website, social media handles, etc. Aggrieved by the same the Plaintiff filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi and an application seeking interim injunction. The averments in the plaint, remained uncontested by the Defendants hence, they were deemed to be true based on the principle of non-traverse. The Court pointed out that the word “CrossFit” was entitled to an enhanced degree of protection as it had no known etymological significance. The Court concluded that a prima facie case and balance of convenience for grant of interim injunction existed in the Plaintiff’s favour. The Defendants were injuncted from using the mark “CrossFit” or any other identical or deceptively similar mark offline or online. They were also directed to take down their website and domain name  www.sfccrossfit.com  as well as all listings, posts, pictures etc. from all sites on the internet including their social media webpages.

Citation: Cross Fit LLC vs Mr Renjith Kunnumal & Anr. [I.A. 6927/2021 in CS (COMM) 251/2021] Decided by High Court of Delhi on 8th July, 2021, available at:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86262643/

ITC Limited vs Maurya Hotel (Madra) Pvt Ltd

In this case, the Madras High Court allowed the Plaintiff to add a relief for trademark infringement to a passing off suit based on subsequent registration of the trademark by the Plaintiff. The Court in the case pointed out that adding a relief is permitted, and helps in avoiding multiplicity of suits. It also stated that the outcome might be different if the application was for conversion of the plaint from the relief of passing off to infringement.

Citation : ITC Limited vs Maurya Hotel (Madra) Pvt Ltd, Decided by Madras High Court on 22nd July, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36231681/

M/S Praba’s V Care Health … vs M/S I-Care Aesthetic Clinic

This case involved a dispute between an employer and its ex-employee. The Plaintiff in the case registered the trademark ‘V Care,’ which was given registration with the limitation that no protection will extend to ‘Care.’ The Defendant in the case started a competing business in related goods/services pertaining to personal and health care with the mark ‘I Care.’ The Plaintiff sued for infringement, and the Court dismissed the case summarily.

While arriving at its decision, the Court stated that the marks are dissimilar, and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. It pointed out that the word ‘care’ is publici juris, and that use of the word in a trademark will not give rise to liability.

Citation: M/S Praba’s V Care Health Clinic … vs M/S I-Care Aesthetic Clinic , Decided by Madras High Court on 29th July, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27457134/

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANR. VS ASHOK KUMAR

In this case, Reliance Industries Limited, the Plaintiff, found a hardware fittings and bathroom accessories retailer using their well-known mark ‘JIO’ and hence filed a trademark & copyright infringement suit before the Bombay High Court. The Defendant on 11th June, 2021 had filed two applications for registration of the mark JIO and pirated artwork which were advertised, claiming use since 16th December, 2016. The court noted that the Defendant not only copied Plaintiffs’ mark, logo and artwork but also added an image of a leaping jaguar which violated Jaguar Land Rover’s intellectual property as well. The Plaintiffs filed an interim application praying for injunction against Defendant’s use of its copyright and trademark until the final disposal of the suit. The Court was of the opinion that an overwhelming prima facie case and balance of convenience lied in Plaintiffs’ favour, and irretrievable prejudice would be caused if the reliefs sought were denied. Hence, the court granted a temporary injunction and gave the Defendant the liberty to apply for a variation, modification or recall of the order after 7 days’ notice to the Plaintiffs’ Advocates. Finally, the court listed the matter hearing on further ad-interim relief on 30th September, 2021.

Citation: Reliance Industries Limited And Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar, Decided by Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58666138/

SONY PICTURES NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

In this case, an FIR was filed by Karad Urban Co-operative Bank (KUCB) for defamation by the web series ‘Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta story,’ which aired on SonyLIV App. The FIR accused Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. and others of offences punishable under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 102 and 107 of the Trade Marks Act, and Sections 66C and 43(b) of the Information Technology Act. In its FIR, the bank alleged that in the third episode of the web series, a logo displayed in the background resembled its trademark, causing severe damage to its financial, commercial and social reputation. Aggrieved by the FIR the accused filed two criminal writ petitions seeking a stay on investigations. The Bombay High Court heard both the matters jointly wherein the petitioners sought the stay on three grounds. Firstly, as per Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, investigation couldn’t be done by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but the said FIR was being investigated by a police inspector. Secondly, alleged offence under Section 500 of IPC was non-cognizable could not be investigated by police on the basis of an FIR. Lastly, that the web series did not come within scope of Trade Marks Act, 1999 based on  Prateek Chandragupt Goyal Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr,  wherein same court held that mere use of trademark in an article does not amount to false application. Convinced by all the three grounds the Court stayed the investigations until the next date of hearing i.e., 17th September, 2019.

Citation: Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. v/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Decided by Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75179673/

Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. SG Worldwide Inc. and Radico Khaitan Ltd.

An appeal to Commercial court was filed by Meher Distilleries, who is a registered proprietor of the trademark THE ASWA for the class – 33 including alcoholic beverages. Respondent No.2- Radico Khaitan launched a product in the same class, a single malt whiskey, using the mark ASĀVA. The Appellant has registered a trademark under class – 33. Later Appellant filed a commercial suit for trademark infringement and filed an interim application to restrain the Respondents from using ASĀVA as a trademark. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the interim application. Challenging the judgment and praying for a restraint order, Appellant has filed this commercial appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellate court set aside the finding of the learned Single Judge that RAMPUR ASĀVA and not ASĀVA alone is the trademark of Defendant No.2. The court also set aside the finding that there is no visual, phonetic or structural similarity between THE ASWA and ASĀVA and the similarity/identity will have to be decided as per the settled principle that in respect of expensive consumable products, the use of house mark with the product mark will obviate the likelihood of confusion. Thus, the Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

Citation: Meher Distilleries Pvt.Ltd vs Sg Worldwide Inc. And Anr Decided by Bombay High Court on 23 August, 2021, availabe at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149887609/

Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed to have originally conceived and adopted the trademark “Rajdhani” for food products, condiments, confectionary, etc. Through social media it found that the Defendants, engaged in the business of Indian Spices under the name of “Rajdhani Masale Co.” and “New Rajdhani Masala Co.” were using its trademark and labels on their products. Aggrieved by the same, Plaintiff filed a suit as well as an interim application seeking injunction against Defendants’ use of the impugned trademarks. On the other hand, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claims, and counterclaimed to be the prior user. The Delhi High Court heard the plea for ad-interim relief on the grounds of ownership, prior use, deceptive similarity and delay in approaching the court. The Court observed that, the Plaintiff was the prior user and registered owner of the trademark and was ‘first in the market’ to use it. Moreover, while comparing the Court noted that the Defendants’ trademarks were deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademark, use of which would further infringe Plaintiff’s rights. Further the Court pointed that delay per se was not sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff of interim relief. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was successful in establishing a prima facie case in its favour and hence granted the interim order restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s trademark.

Citation: Victoria Foods Private Limited vs Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.  Decided by Delhi High Court on 1st September, 2021, available at:  http://164.100.69.66/jupload/dhc/JAN/judgement/01-09-2021/JAN01092021SC1082021_105848.pdf

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Sunil Keshavji Tataria

The Plaintiff, Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., sought a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Sunil Keshavji Tataria from infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trade mark, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademarks, damages, rendition of accounts. The Defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of adult diapers and underpads sold online on the website  www.tatariahygiene.com  which infringed the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “Tata”. The subject matter of the suit was amicably resolved in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Since the dispute inter se parties stood resolved prior to commencing of pleadings, the Court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to get a refund of entire court fees.

Citation:  Tata Sons Private Limited v. Sunil Keshavji Tataria & Anr. Decided by Delhi High Court on 31 August, 2021 available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53529635/

Prince Pipes And Fittings Limited vs Prince Platinum Pipes And Fittings

The Plaintiff, Prince Pipes uses the mark “PRINCE” in conjunction with a crown device as a registered trade mark in relation to its PVC pipe products. The adoption of the mark itself goes back to 1996. The Plaintiff has obtained a series of registrations from 2014 onwards of the “PRINCE” mark and logo. The goods have been described by the Plaintiff as “Piping Systems”. The PRINCE mark is prominently displayed on every unit or segment of the supplied products. The Defendant, Prince Platinum Pipes was using “PRINCE PLATINUM” to trade the goods and also created a website with domain name “www.princeplatinumplastindia.com” for trading the goods similar to Plaintiff. Deceived by the advertisement of Defendant, one of the dealers of Plaintiff sent a communication on 4th January, asking for their platinum products. The Plaintiff claims that such communication is a strong prima facie material showing that actual deception and confusion has in fact already taken place and anyone would be lured into believing that the PRINCE platinum product is in fact from the house of the Plaintiff. The court gave interim orders and restrained Defendant from using the impugned trade mark “PRINCE PLATINUM”, the impugned domain name “www.princeplatinumplastindia.com” and/or impugned business name “Prince Platinum Pipe & Fittings” and/or any other impugned mark/domain name/business name/trading style containing the word PRINCE and/or any other trade mark, domain name or business name/trading style identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark “PRINCE” in respect of Plaintiff’s business. The court also appointed a court receiver as the receiver of Defendants’ goods, stamps, printing materials, labels, brochures, pamphlets, flyers, advertising material, papers, stationery, printed matter, things and such material and documents of the Defendants bearing or containing the impugned trade mark “PRINCE PLATINUM”.

Citation: Prince Pipes & Fittings Limited vs Prince Platinum Pipes & Fittings decided  by Bombay High Court, on 10 March, 2021 available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64355958/

Prateek Chandragupt Goyal vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

In this case, the petitioner, Prateek Goyal, a journalist working with Newslaundry filed a writ petition to quash the First Information Report registered against him at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The FIR was registered against the petitioner by Chief Administrative Officer of Sakal Group for writing highly defamatory articles against the Sakal Media Group and that use of the official logos / trade mark of the Sakal Media Group and Sakal Times on these articles clearly amounted to falsely applying the said trademark, thereby resulting in an offence under Section 103 of the aforesaid Act. The court was of the view that the articles authored by the Petitioner and published in the news portal Newslaundry neither qualify as goods nor as services as defined under Section 2(j) and 2(z) of the aforesaid Act. The Court found that, although the mark shown in the two articles is indeed the ‘trademark’ of Sakal Media Group under Section 2(z)(b) of the aforesaid Act, the said mark being shown in the articles could not be said to be in the context of either ‘goods’ or ‘services’. It would have been a completely different matter if the Petitioner had used the registered trademark of Sakal Media Group to portray as if the news portal itself was that of Sakal Media Group. Thus, the Court directed the Vishrambaug Police Station to quash the FIR.

Citation: Prateek Chandragupt Goyal vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr., decided by Bombay High Court on 20 April, 2021, available at :  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96389521/

KAVERI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED… VS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD & ORS.

In this case, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Appellant, Kaveri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. as the lower court did not look into adequacy of stamp fee. The questions before the High Court of Gujarat were whether the agreement reduced into writing on a Non-Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100 required appropriate stamp duty to be affixed in order to become admissible as evidence before the Registrar of Trademarks and whether the dispute between the parties on the Trade Mark ‘Chokhi Dhani’ should be registered in favour of the Appellant or in favour of the Respondent. The Court observed that at the previous instances the question of stamp duty was neither raised by the parties nor discussed by the Registrar of Trademarks or the Lower Court and therefore not discussed by the Single Judge. The Court opined that all the orders passed by the Authorities below could not be sustained and the entire matter had to be remanded back to the Registrar to decide the case again with the question of stamp duty as a preliminary issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Hence, the Letters of Patent Appeal was allowed, the order passed by the Single Judge and IPAB were set aside and the matter was restored to the Registrar.

Citation: Kaveri Hotels Private Limited… Vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors., Decided by High Court of Gujarat on 1st July, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27698270/

GUCCIO GUCCI… vs INTIYAZ SHEIKH

In this case, the Plaintiff, Guccio Gucci S.P.A. filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendant, Intiyaz Sheikh so as to restrain him and persons claiming under him from infringing its trademark, copyright, passing off, unfair trade competition, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. The Plaintiff had been advertising its products bearing its IP, registered in many countries, through various printed media including newspapers, magazines, internet and trade journals, leaflets and other promotional literature. Plaintiff in its course of market survey came to know that the Defendant was illegally manufacturing socks using Plaintiff’s registered “green and red stripes” logo and mark “Gucci” in its entirety. The Court had passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. At the later stages of the suit the Court noted that the Defendant deliberately chose not to participate in the proceedings despite the pendency. The Court reasoned that a civil case proceeded on the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Although mere non−appearance of Defendant could not be inferred against him, but in view of overall facts, coupled with the evidence on record along with the report of local commissioner, the Plaintiff was successful in establishing the case in its favour. The Court decreed a permanent injunction against the Defendant and directed him to handover all the infringing goods to the Plaintiff as well as pay ₹2,00,000/- and ₹1,66,000/- as costs and damages respectively.

Citation: Guccio Gucci… vs Intiyaz Sheikh, decided by District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 27th August, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178127761/

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Vansh Cosmetic and Anr

In this case, the Plaintiff was the true proprietor of the marks “LAKME”, “LAKME NINE TO FIVE, NINE TO FIVE”, “9 to 5”, “LAKME EYECONIC”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE WHITE INTENSE”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE ARGAN OIL RADIANCE” and many others, which had been successful in the market since 2011. Around July 2021, it was found that the Defendants were selling the counterfeit cosmetic products/goods of “LAKME” brand the counterfeit products were a blatant imitation and obvious copy of the artistic work, trade dress or the overall colour scheme of the original, which in turn might have led to deception and confusion amidst the general public. The plaint also averred the apprehension that the Defendant’s products were of an inferior quality and could thus be a health threat to the users. Thereby it was submitted that the Defendant was infringing the registered trademarks and copyrights actually owned by the Plaintiff.

The Court agreed found a clear case of prima facie infringement of the trademarks and copyrights owned by the Plaintiff, and found that the evident and deceptive similarity between the two could not be a mere coincidence. Thus, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim order restraining the Defendant from manufacturing/ packaging/ printing/ selling/ distributing any counterfeit products/goods bearing marks deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered marks. The Court also appointed a Court Receiver as receiver of the Defendants’ counterfeit goods bearing the impugned marks or the pirated artistic works. As per the said order the Court commissioner was vested with the powers to execute this said order was held to be in operation till 17th September 2021.

Citation: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Vansh Cosmatic and Anr, Decided by Bombay High Court on 27 July, 2021, available at :  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115803403/

Global Car Group Pte Ltd & Anr Vs Mr Krishi Ramesh Khandelwal & Ors.

The Plaintiff, Global Car Group PTE Ltd. & Anr., filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 seeking a prima facie ex-parte injunction to restrain the Defendant, Mr. Krishna Ramesh Khandelwal & Ors., from using or offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in goods infringing the trademarks of the Plaintiffs specifically, “Bikes24x7” or any other identical or deceptively similar ’24 Formative Marks’. The Plaintiff had been using the trademarks since 2015 and the concept combining the words ‘Cars’, ‘Funding’, ‘Auction’ and ‘Unnati’ along with the number ’24’ was an essential feature of all the trademarks of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff while conducting a search for the word ‘Bikes24’ came across the Defendant’s mark, which was infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks in connection with its second-hand/refurbished motorcycles business. The Defendant was also operating the website www.bikes24x7.com and had filed a trade mark application for the mark in class 35 which was pending before the Registrar of Trademarks. The Plaintiff had previously issued a cease-and-desist notice to the Defendant. The court stated that it was clear that the Defendant was prima facie trying to adopt a mark which was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark, and thus restrained the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in goods or services bearing the infringing marks, or any other trade mark which was identical to the Plaintiff’s trademarks until further orders were given by the court. The Defendant was also directed to suspend the use of domain name https://bikes24x7.com/ within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

Citation: Global Car Group Pte Ltd & Anr vs Mr Krishi Ramesh Khandelwal & Ors, Decided by the Delhi High Court on 21st September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9080762/

P.Kanthilal vs Shetan Singh

Kanthilal, the Plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Shetan Singh, the Defendant, for infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff’s trademark. Plaintiff claimed to own the trademark “PREETHI” and acquired distinctiveness as a result of continuous and extensive use and promotion since 1998. The Plaintiff became aware that the Defendant was infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s trademark by using the identical mark PREETHI/RREETHI for identical goods as those manufactured and marketed by the Plaintiff and thereby diverting customers looking for the Plaintiff’s products. The Defendant claimed that the registration of the Plaintiff’s mark was currently the subject matter of rectification proceedings before Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai under rectification filed by M/s.Maya Appliances Limited on 10.4.2006 and was pending for adjudication and hence there could be no infringement suit against the Defendant. The court held the Defendant liable for infringement, permanently restrained the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered trademark PREETHI by using the identical and deceptively similar trademark PREETHI/RREETHI or any other identical or deceptively, confusingly similar trademark in relation to the goods manufactured and traded by the Plaintiff.

Citation: P.Kanthilal vs Shetan Singh on 30 August, 2021, decided by Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City, available at  P.Kanthilal vs Shetan Singh on 30 August, 2021 , Available at  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130347445/

Geetanjali Studio Private V. Nuxi To Kut N Kurl Private Limited

In this case, Geetanjali Studio Private, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 seeking prima facie ex-parte injunction to restrain Nuxi To Kut N Kurl Private Limited, the Defendant, from offering for sale of any services or goods under the marks GEETANJALI, GEETANJALI SALON, GEETANJALI STUDIO or any other identical or deceptively similar marks. The Plaintiff entered into a new franchise agreement with the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff licensed the Defendant to use its trade mark on a non- exclusive basis for a certain payment. The Defendant failed to pay the franchise fee even after several reminders, thus, on 30.03.2021, the Plaintiffs sent an email to the Defendant demanding a total sum of Rs.3,83,210/- as an outstanding fee as a last measure. On failure of the Defendant to pay the fee within the given time, the Plaintiff terminated the franchise agreement by issuing a notice of termination on 06.04.2021. In June 2021, after the lockdown was lifted, it was found that the Defendant was using the Plaintiff’s trademark and running ‘Geetanjali Studio’ despite the termination notice, and a legal notice was sent to the Defendants on 28.06.2021. However, the Defendant continued to use the said trademark. The court found that the continued use of the trademark in question by the Defendant to be violating the Plaintiff’s rights, and restrained the Defendant from using the impugned trademark or any other or identical or deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘GEETANALI’. The Defendant was ordered to comply within five days from the date of the order.

Citation: Geetanjali Studio Private vs Nuxi To Kut N Kurl Private Limited, Decided by the Delhi High Court on 21stSeptember, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18307181/

Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt. v. L N Agency

In this case, the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the brand name “LUXXUBERANCE” and also a dealer of many internationally acclaimed and well-known brands for lifestyle products such as handbags and watches. The Plaintiff chose the Defendant to operate the franchise which was to be opened at Jamshedpur for the purpose of selling goods under the Plaintiff on a sale-or-return basis. Thereby a Letter of Intent (LoI) was executed between the parties and the Defendant agreed to make a security deposit of Rs 7.5 lakhs and the Plaintiff delivered stocks worth around Rs. 42 Lakhs to the Defendant. The Defendant was unable to generate service and the commission-related obligations in accordance with the LoI and sent an email to the Plaintiff intimating his decision to shut down the store by 1st May 2021. The Defendant claimed Rs. 52 lakhs from the Plaintiff citing the amount it had spent for the signage and setting up of the outlet in spite of the fact that the LoI clearly indicated that those expenses were to be taken from the Defendant’s account. The Plaintiff also submitted that the Defendant had not generated any income from the said franchisee set up. Though the Plaintiff stated that the LoI signed as a part of Franchise had come to an end, the Defendant still continued to use the Plaintiff’s registered trademark in order to sell many products. Thus, having made out a prima facie case and found the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff, the court issued temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing/ advertising/ marketing/ selling any goods with the Plaintiff’s registered marks or the other well-known trademarks owned by the Plaintiff. The court further ordered ad interim relief such that if any material/items were found at the Defendant’s outlet, the same would be seized by the Court Receiver and handed over to the Plaintiff and. The Court appointed an Additional Special Receiver, empowered and vested with the powers to take police assistance for successful execution of the commission. The order was held to be in operation till 20th October 2021 or until receipt of further order from the Court.

Citation : Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt. … vs L N Agency, Decided by Bombay High Court on 21 September, 2021, available at :   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160060846/

Saint-Gobain India Private Ltd. vs Geeta Kaler & Ors.

In this case, the Plaintiffs 1 to 4 an English, French, UK and Indian Company respectively were part of the SAINT-GOBAIN group of corporate entities which mainly dealt with the manufacture and sale of a variety of insulation systems, glass, building materials, water supply systems and so on across many international jurisdictions. The SAINT-GOBAIN group established its presence in the Indian market since 1996.  In India, the mark “GYPROC” was registered in the name of the Plaintiff-1 and the marks “SAINT-GOBAIN” and the label “SAINT-GOBAIN” were registered in the name of Plaintiff-2. They also owned a few other marks such as “GLASROC”, “GYPROC HABITO” and so on. Around May 2014, the Defendant-1 filed an application for the mark “GYPROCK” and the Registry in its objection cited Plaintiff-1’s mark “GYPROC” as the conflicting mark. The Defendant-1 claimed dissimilarity and did not respond to Cease and Desist notice issued by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition Notice and eventually the application was deemed to be abandoned. In 2017, another application for mark “SAND GOVIND GYPROCK” was filed by the Defendants 1 & 2, operating under the banner of the Defendant-3. The Plaintiffs initiated the opposition proceedings and this application too was abandoned. In 2020, the Plaintiffs discovered that the Defendants tried to trade under the marks “GYPROCK” and “SAND GOVIND GYPROCK” again. Hence, they filed this suit and the Court found sufficient prima facie case on the grounds that the Defendants’ mark was indistinguishable from that of the Plaintiffs’ and was a blatant imitation to take undue advantage of the phonetic, aural, structural and visual similarity between the said marks and to in turn trade upon Plaintiffs’ hard-earned goodwill and reputation. The Court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the marks “GYPROCK”, “SAND GOVIND GYPROCK” or “SAND GOVIND GYPSUM CO” or the packaging/trade dress that might be similar or in any way identical to the registered marks “GYPROC”, “SAINT-GOBAIN” owned by the Plaintiffs. The order was held to be in operation till 26th October 2021 or until receipt of further order from the Court.

Citation: Saint-Gobain India Private … vs Geeta Kaler & Ors, Decided by Bombay High Court on 27 September, 2021, available at :  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173802317/

Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Sakshi Srivastava & Anr.

There were four Plaintiffs in this case, i.e., Mr. Avtar Singh, Mr. Harkirat Singh, Aero Traders Private Ltd. and Aero Associates Pvt. Ltd., who co-owned M/s Aero Club. They filed an application for the trademark “WOODS” in the club’s name firstly in 1994 and 1996 under Class 25 and in 2017 under Class 3. The Plaintiffs together subsequently registered trademarks “WOODLAND”, “WOODLAND” (stylised) and other “WOODLAND” marks on varying dates in compliance with Section 28 and 31 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. They had pending registration for trademarks “WOODS” (word) and “WOODS” (stylised) under Class 18.  The two Defendants in this case jointly owned M/s Siddhi Vinayak Clothes and Concepts. Defendant 1 also registered trademarks with the same names as the Plaintiffs’, as well as “WOODLEY” under Class 18 and 35. On October 4th, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition under Classes 18, 25 and 35 on the grounds that the Defendants have dishonestly adopted the Plaintiffs’ impugned mark “WOODLEY”. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants’ mark “WOODLEY” was deceptively, visually and phonetically similar to the Plaintiff’s marks “WOODLAND” and “WOODS”. The style and font of “W” on the Defendants’ device or label “WOODLEY” was also virtually identical, along with the identical colour scheme of blue background with white font colour. The Defendants contended that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the Plaintiffs in the filing of the suit and that that the word “wood” cannot have any exclusivity over it as it is non-distinctive and generic. The Defendants’ mark “WOODLEY” is also phonetically pronounced “wad-lee”, which is different from the Plaintiff’s marks and the logos as a whole has many differences in styling, colour schemes and font size. The Defendants also claimed that they were under litigation for the issue of similarity before the specialized authority i.e. the Trademark Registry for the last 3 years, so this case filed by Plaintiff was to hasten those proceedings. The Delhi High Court observed, in favour of the Plaintiffs, that a mark should not always be looked at in totality because some elements of mark could be deceptively similar. The Court also observed that the similarity test is to be applied differently for different economic classes, which was an argument in the favour of the Defendants, as their targeted buyers were not on the affluent side unlike the Plaintiffs’. The Court also observed that the Defendants submitted that they would only use their trademarks under class 25 and class 35 and not use blue colour. The Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs and allowed the interim order mainly because the Plaintiffs had a prima facie case against the Defendant.

Citation: Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Sakshi Srivastava & Anr., Decided by The Supreme Court on 4th October, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45312155/

Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc vs Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd.

In this case, Jumeirah, the hotel and trademark owner of “Burj Al Arab,” filed a case against a real estate/construction company, which was using the marks Burj Noida, Burj Bangalore, Burj Mumbai and so on. Jumeirah asked for an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The Defendant also had registrations over its marks, and argued that Jumeirah does not hold any rights over the word ‘Burj,’ which means tower. After reviewing the facts and arguments, the Delhi High Court allowed the Defendant to use Burj Noida for its ongoing project, but restrained the Defendant from using Burj Bangalore, Burj Mumbai and so on. While arriving at its conclusion, the Court stated that Burj is the essential part of Jumeirah trademark, and that well knownness of the mark has to be established on trial.

Citation: Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc vs Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd., Decided by Delhi High Court on 9 November, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88013685/

Bacardi And Company Limited vs Bahety Overseas Private Limited & others

Bacardi filed a trademark infringement and passing off case against Bahety with respect to its products sold under the registered trademark, BREEZER, and its trade dress. The suit was filed against Bahety’s use of the marks, Freeze and FreezeMix’ for non-alcoholic drinks, which were being sold in bottles having design similarities. After looking at the usage of the marks and bottle designs, the Court came to the conclusion that Bahety was using the trademark, FreezeMix, by writing it in a manner similar to Bacardi’s Breezer. According to the Court, the emphasis was on the word ‘Freeze,’ which was being used in a prominent manner along with bottles bearing similar designs. It stated that the bottle of Bahety included a similar champagne base, ridges and bottle top. Though Bacardi was selling alcoholic drinks and Bahety, non-alcoholic drinks, the Court came to the conclusion that there was infringement as there was consumer association between the products. The Court went on to grant an interim injunction in favour of Bacardi restraining Bahety from using the trademark FreezeMix and related trade dress.

Case citation: Bacardi And Company Limited vs Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Others, Decided by Delhi High Court on 12 November, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48139811/

Pidilite Industries Limited v. Platinum Waltech Limited

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant seeking relief in trade mark, copyright and designs combined with causes of action in passing off in each. The Plaintiff was a well-known manufacturer of products relating to the construction and paint industry and had a worldwide presence since 1969. The Plaintiff had several trademarks related to its products which included the DR FIXIT mark with a distinctive device of a man wearing a yellow construction helmet and product identification marks including LW+, LW, URP, PIDIPROOF. Plaintiff claimed Copyright protection in the labels as well, being original artistic works. The Plaintiff claimed goodwill and reputation acquired by usage of its IP over an extended period of time continuously and uninterruptedly. The Plaintiff also claimed distinctiveness in the configuration of the can or container used by them for its products.

The Plaintiff came across a construction chemical product manufactured by the Defendant, which had some striking similarities with the Plaintiff’s product. The container was almost indistinguishable from that of the Plaintiff, which also used the mark LWC. The colour scheme was also broadly the same as that of the Plaintiff’s products and there was a feature of a man in tie and jacket wearing a yellow construction helmet. The defence presented by the Defendant was that the mark LWC used by the Defendants was purely descriptive and stood for ‘liquid waterproof / waterproofing compound’.

The Court stated that entire set of actions of the Defendant must be seen as one. The Court applied the test of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The court stated that the container used by the Defendant was a dead giveaway. If the Defendant was bona fide in its adoption, there was no reason for it to adopt a container of this design that was so strikingly similar to the Plaintiff’s. With respect to the Defendant’s claim that its use of the LWS mark was descriptive, the court stated that the Defendant was not the expression ‘’liquid waterproof compound’’, but was using the abbreviation LWC, which was similar to marks LW and LW+ that were registered by the Plaintiff. Further, the man portrayed by the Defendant was also similar to the DR FIXIT device of the Plaintiff.

The court issued an injunction against the Defendant, and also ordered the Defendant to pay costs in the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the Plaintiff within two weeks from the date of the order.

Citation: Pidilite Industries Limited vs Platinum Waltech Limited, Decided by High Court of Bombay on 24 August, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55280317/

N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd. v. Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods

The Plaintiff, engaged in the business since 1948, was a leading manufacturer and supplier of incense sticks and other allied products. It held several trademarks, of which the mark ‘CYCLE’ was in dispute in this case. The Defendant herein adopted the mark ‘CYCLE’ concerning edible oil. Plaintiff claimed that the mark was immensely popular and owing to its wide turnover and extensive sales and promotional activities, the trademark CYCLE was a well-known mark. The Plaintiff filed the suit under Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and claimed that Defendant intended to take undue advantage of its reputation and goodwill. It was further claimed that such use caused unwarranted confusion among the public and amounted to clear infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademark.

The Court stated that the burden was on the Plaintiff to prove (i) its reputation in India; (ii) that the Defendant was using the mark without due cause; (iii) that by using the mark without cause the Defendant took unfair advantage, or it was detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark.

The Court found that the Plaintiff proved only reputation regarding goods related to incense sticks and failed to prove that the Defendant was using the mark without due cause or taking unfair advantage. Further, no evidence was led by Plaintiff to show that the use of the mark by the Defendant was detrimental to or caused dilution to the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Court noted that though the mark CYCLE was a common household item and a generic word the distinctiveness acquired by the Plaintiff was restricted to the goods for which it had registration, and it could not obtain a monopoly over the word or claim exclusive right across other classes of goods. In view of the findings the Court dismissed the suit.

Citation: N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd vs Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods, Decided by Madras High Court on 18 November, 2016, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25237434/

Aqua Pump Industries & Anr. v. Tapesh Kumar

Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, Aqua Pump Industries and Aqua Sub Engineering respectively, manufactured different types of electric motors and pumps under their registered trademark “TEXMO”. They also jointly owned the trademark in respect of goods such as centrifugal pumps, domestic pumps and sugar cane machines categorised under Class 7 of the Schedule of the Trademark Rules. They registered “TEXMO” as a mark and device mark, with the expression “TEXMO” impressed on an inverted triangle. Plaintiff No. 1 commenced its business in April 1974 under the trademark “TEXMO”, while Plaintiff No. 2 started its business in November 1982 under the same mark. They entered into an agreement together to officially register as proprietors of the trademark “TEXMO” in April 1998. In Trade Mark Journal No. 1915 published in August 2019, the Plaintiffs discovered that the Defendant applied for registration of a mark with the same name for industrial and domestic sewing machines, under Class 7. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant knowingly exploited the commercial goodwill gained all over the Indian market attached to the Plaintiffs’ trade mark “TEXMO”. They contended that the Defendant not only adopted an identical mark, but did so for goods in the same class, thus making it cognate to the Plaintiffs’ goods. Even though the nature of goods was different, the public may confuse the Defendants’ goods with theirs, diluting their mark’s reputation. The Defendants would unfairly gain from Plaintiff’s business with annual turnover of 1,200 crore rupees. The Madras High Court observed that the Defendant could have easily found that the mark was existing, if it had conducted a bona fide search for the invented word “TEXMO”, being used by the Plaintiffs since 1976. Thus, the Court granted permanent injunction in the Plaintiffs’ favour restraining the Defendant from using their mark.

Citation: Aqua Pump Industries & Anr. v. Tapesh Kumar, Decided by The Madras High Court on 31st August, 2021, available at  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156980139/

Walmart Apollo Llc vs Aayush Jain & Anr

In this case, the Plaintiff owns a registered trademark for WALMART / WAL-MART. The Defendant applied for WMART and allegedly used since April, 2019. The Plaintiff filed an infringement suit against the Defendant, who was using ‘WMart’ and  www.wmartretail.com . The Plaintiff prayed for an injunction during the pendency of the suit, which the Court granted until the next date of hearing.

Citation: Walmart Apollo Llc vs Aayush Jain & Anr, Decided by Delhi High Court on 12 November, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121804661/

Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited vs Landsmill Agro Private Limited

In this case, the Plaintiff registered a trademark on the word “Chakra” for edible oils. The Defendant in the case was using the marks “CHAKRA KOLHU”, “CHAKRIKA” and “CHAKRESH” for its oil products. The Court in the case granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to the Defendant’s use of “CHAKRA KOLHU”, but allowed the Defendant to file a reply before making a decision on “CHAKRIKA” and “CHAKRESH.” Though the Defendant argued that the word “Chakra” is commonly used in the industry, the Court opined that the Defendant’s use of the mark with yellow lettering with black background like the Plaintiff warrants an interim injunction.

Citation: Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited vs Landsmill Agro Private Limited, Decided by Delhi High Court on 12 November, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66419635/

Y.V. Seshachalam and Co. v. Sri Om Sai Traders

The Plaintiff, engaged in trading pooja products, sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing its registered trademark despite having issued a Cease-and-Desist notice. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s trademark ‘GOKULAM’ was phonetically similar to ‘GOPURAM’, and claimed that the Defendant adopted the Plaintiff’s colour scheme with the intent to pass off its goods as that of the Plaintiff’s. The High Court of Madras acknowledged the similarity of trademarks and opined that the Defendant had deliberately adopted a similar colour scheme to mislead an average consumer into thinking that the product belonged to the Plaintiff. The Court verified the Plaintiff’s stronghold in the market by perusing various trade-related certificates that were submitted. The relief sought by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from further infringement of trademark was granted, and the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 for the act of infringement. However, due to lack of evidence that proved unjust enrichment of trademark, the Court denied a relief that directed the Defendant to surrender the accounts of profits earned during the period of infringement.

Citation: Y.V. Seshachalam and Co. v. Sri Om Sai Traders on 9th September, 2021, available at Y.V. Seshachalam and Co. v. Sri Om Sai Traders  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71243154/

Agatha Christie Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks.

In this case, Agatha Christie Limited filed a trademark application for the mark, “And Then There Were None.” The Registrar rejected the application, and the Agatha Christie Limited appealed. The Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that there was no ground based on which the mark could have been rejected under the Trademarks Act, 1999, as the mark was not descriptive and because no similar marks were existing on the Register. It also pointed out that the mark was distinctive, and asked the Registrar to register the mark.

Citation: Agatha Christie Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Decided by Delhi High Court on 8 December, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183502564/

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs D.D.Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.

In this case, Sun Pharma filed three trademark infringement suits against DD Pharma with respect to adoption of similar trademarks. One of the trademarks of the Plaintiff was BUPRON, and the Defendant was using BUPRO.

DD Pharma primarily argued that its trademarks are not infringing because the trademarks were adopted by both parties from the names of active ingredients. With respect to BUPRON, the active ingredient was Bupropion Hydrochloride. It also argued that the marks are prescription drugs, which can be differentiated by doctors and pharmacists.

The Court disagreed with DD Pharma, and held that the likelihood of confusion required a lower standard of proof with respect to pharmaceutical products as confusion in drug marks is likely to cause harm to the general public. It also pointed out that patients are likely to be easily confused if the names are similar. Though the marks of both Sun and DD Pharma were adopted from the names of active ingredients, the Court stated that there is likelihood of confusion and granted a permanent injunction in favour of Sun Pharma prohibiting DD Pharma from using the marks in question.

Citation: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs D.D.Pharmaceuticals Private Limited., available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40229201/

Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr

In this case, Exxon Mobil filed a trademark infringement suit against MOBILFUELS for use of its registered trademark, MOBIL, as part of the name of its mobile app on Google Play Store. The Defendant in the case was using MOBILFUELS as the name of its app. The Court passed an ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark, MOBILFUELS, until the date of next hearing.

Citation: Exxon Mobil Corporation vs  Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr, Decided by Delhi High Court on 29 November, 2021, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130852639/

This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department.

About BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department

BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to  [email protected] .

Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to  [email protected]   for corrections and take down.

You May Also Like

Value of ip for small and medium enterprises, choosing the right ip name/business representation, leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Assignment of Trademark

It is the assignment of trade mark that creates rights in favour of the assignee and not the registration of assignment as contemplated in section 45 of the trade marks act, 1999. if the application for getting transferred the registered trademark in the office of the registrar is pending, that does not debar the party from protecting the violation of the trademark. registration of assignment is not a condition precedent to an action for infringement by the assignee and an assignee of registered trademark will not be disentitled to an action for infringement on the ground that the assignment was not registered..

• T.I. Muhammad Zumoon Sahib vs. Fathimunnissa ; AIR 1960 Mad 80
• Modi Threads Limited vs. Som Soot Gola Factory ; AIR 1992 Delhi 4
• Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. vs. Vidya Batra ; 1998 PTC 18
• Astrazeneca U.K. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; 2006 PTC 733 (Delhi)
• Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited vs. Cipla Limited ; 2009 (39) PTC 347 (Del)
• Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad; MANU/MH/0485/2012

Foreign Cases

• Thorn Ld. vs. East Anglia Portable Builings Ld. ; 1960 R.P.C. 260
• Ihlee vs. Henshaw ; (1886) 3 R.P.C. 15
• Blighty Industries Association Ld. vs. Scottish Home Industries Association Ltd. ; (1927) 44 R.P.C. 269

Recordal of Deed of Assignment is mandatory. Non-compliance of mandatory requirement to record assignments would amount to flouting the law. Any person not complying with the mandatory provision cannot take benefit despite such non-compliance.

• Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs. Kunwer Sachdev & Ors.;  2019 (80) PTC 225 (Del)
• Ramaiah Life Style Cafe vs. Eminent Entertainment & Ors.;  CS(COMM.) 1433/2016

Factors that determine whether an arrangement is a license or an assignment.

• Hilton Roulunds v. Commissioner of Income Tax; ITA 325/2005, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi;  (2018) 304 CTR (Del); 721 [2019] 412 ITR 436(Delhi); MANU/DE/1541/2018

Any delay on the part of the Trade Marks Registry cannot be to the prejudice of the plaintiff firm, who has every right to protect its right in the trade marks.

• M/s. Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Innovative Outfits Limited ; CS(COMM) 637/2019; Date of Decision: 26th May, 2020; Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Para 56)

Similar Posts

M/s. jagdamba impex v. tristar products pvt. ltd..

M/s. Jagdamba Impex v. Tristar Products Pvt. Ltd.; 05.05.2014; FAO 128 and 129 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court Plaintiff developed a teeth cutting machine. The machine was based on Industrial Drawing and the Plaintiff was the owner of the said artistic work. The Plaintiff was making commercial use of the said drawings by…

Case List: Contract of personal services cannot be specifically enforced

A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced in a civil suit. Case List Jitendra Nath Biswas vs. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co. and Anr., 1989, Supreme Court, (1989) 3 SCC 582; Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, 2004, Supreme Court; (2004) 3 SCC 172; Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. C.P. Sebastian, 2009,…

Case List: Winding Up

A Admitted Debt u/s 433(3) of Companies Act, 1956 Alternative Remedy to be initiated before invoking just and equitable clause u/s 433 (f) B Bona fide dispute C Commercial Insolvency Creditor’s Objection to Winding Up Composite petitions under Sections 397, 398 and 433(f) D Dissolution of Partnership and Deadlock as grounds for Winding Up under Section…

Case List: Gift of Shares to Company?

Case List Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle vs. Nadatur Holdings and Investments (P.) Ltd., 2012, Karnataka High Court; [2012] 210 TAXMAN 597 (Kar); M.K. Kuppuraj and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax, 2002, Madras High Court; [2002] 258 ITR 412 (Mad).

Nirma Limited v. Nimma International and Anr.

Nirma Limited v. Nimma International and Anr. 2010 (42) PTC 307 (Del) Facts: Plaintiff (Nirma Ltd.), was the proprietor of the trademarks ‘Nirma’ and ‘Nima’, registered in 1979 and 1982 respectively, under the class dealing with detergent powder, toilet soaps, etc. Plaintiff was aggrieved by the Defendants’ (Nimma International and Anr.) use of the marks…

No need to prove actual damage

CASE LIST Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.; 2002 (24) PTC 1 [Summary] Prakash Glass and Rubber Works & Anr. v . Hindustan Safety Glass Works Pvt. Ltd.; 2006 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 555 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Study record managers: refer to the Data Element Definitions if submitting registration or results information.

Search for terms

• Advanced Search
• See Studies by Topic
• See Studies on Map
• How to Search
• How to Use Search Results
• How to Find Results of Studies
• How to Read a Study Record

• Learn About Studies
• Other Sites About Studies
• Glossary of Common Site Terms

• Submit Studies to ClinicalTrials.gov PRS
• Why Should I Register and Submit Results?
• FDAAA 801 and the Final Rule
• How to Apply for a PRS Account
• How to Register Your Study
• How to Edit Your Study Record
• How to Submit Your Results
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Support Materials
• Training Materials

• Selected Publications
• Clinical Alerts and Advisories
• Trends, Charts, and Maps
• Downloading Content for Analysis

• ClinicalTrials.gov Background
• About the Results Database
• History, Policies, and Laws
• ClinicalTrials.gov Modernization
• Media/Press Resources
• Linking to This Site
• Terms and Conditions
• Search Results
• Study Record Detail

Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Study of the Tolerability, Safety and Immunogenicity of an Inactivated Whole Virion Concentrated Purified Vaccine (CoviVac) Against Covid-19 of Children at the Age of 12-17 Years Inclusive"

• Study Details
• Tabular View
• No Results Posted

Recruitment of volunteers will be competitive. A maximum of 450 children aged 12 to 17 years inclusive will be screened in the study, of which it is planned to include and randomize 300 children who meet the criteria for inclusion in the study and do not have non-inclusion criteria, data on which will be used for subsequent safety and immunogenicity analysis.

Group 1 - 150 volunteers who will be vaccinated with the Nobivac vaccine twice with an interval of 21 days intramuscularly.

Group 2 - 150 volunteers who will receive a placebo twice with an interval of 21 days intramuscularly.

In case of withdrawal of volunteers from the study, their replacement is not provided.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Volunteers must meet the following inclusion criteria:

Type of participants • Healthy volunteers.

Age at the time of signing the Informed Consent

• from 12 to 17 years inclusive (12 years 0 months 0 days - 17 years 11 months 30 days).

Paul • Male or female.

Reproductive characteristics

• For girls with a history of mensis - a negative pregnancy test and consent to adhere to adequate methods of contraception (use of contraceptives within a month after the second vaccination). Girls should use methods of contraception with a reliability of more than 90% (cervical caps with spermicide, diaphragms with spermicide, condoms, intrauterine spirals).
• For young men capable of conception - consent to adhere to adequate methods of contraception (use of contraceptives within a month after the second vaccination). Young men and their sexual partners should use methods of contraception with a reliability of more than 90% (cervical caps with spermicide, diaphragms with spermicide, condoms, intrauterine spirals).

Research procedures

• Written Informed consent of a volunteer (14 years and older) and one of the parents to participate in a clinical trial.
• Volunteers who are able to fulfill Protocol requirements (i.e. answer phone calls, fill out a Self-observation Diary, come to control visits).

Non-inclusion criteria:

• Volunteers cannot be included in the study if any of the following criteria are present:

SARS-CoV-2 infection

• A case of established COVID-19 disease confirmed by PCR and/or ELISA in the last 6 months.
• History of contacts with confirmed or suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days prior to vaccination.
• Positive IgM or IgG to SARS-CoV-2 detected on Screening.
• Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 at Screening / before vaccination.

Diseases or medical conditions

• Serious post-vaccination reaction (temperature above 40 C, hyperemia or edema more than 8 cm in diameter) or complication (collapse or shock-like condition that developed within 48 hours after vaccination; convulsions, accompanied or not accompanied by a feverish state) to any previous vaccination.
• Burdened allergic history (anaphylactic shock, Quincke's edema, polymorphic exudative eczema, serum sickness in the anamnesis, hypersensitivity or allergic reactions to the introduction of any vaccines in the anamnesis, known allergic reactions to vaccine components, etc.).
• Guillain-Barre syndrome (acute polyradiculitis) in the anamnesis.
• The axillary temperature at the time of vaccination is more than 37.0 ° C.
• Positive blood test for HIV, syphilis, hepatitis B/C.
• Acute infectious diseases (recovery earl

Exclusion Criteria:

- • Withdrawal of Informed consent by a volunteer and/or a parent of a volunteer;

• The volunteer was included in violation of the inclusion/non-inclusion criteria of the Protocol;
• Availability of inclusion/non-inclusion criteria before vaccination;
• Any condition of a volunteer that requires, in the reasoned opinion of a medical researcher, the withdrawal of a volunteer from the study;
• The established fact of pregnancy before the second vaccination;
• Taking unauthorized medications (see section 6.2);
• The volunteer's incompetence with the study procedures;
• The volunteer refuses to cooperate or is undisciplined (for example, failure to attend a scheduled visit without warning the researcher and/or loss of communication with the volunteer), or dropped out of observation;
• For administrative reasons (termination of the study by the Sponsor or regulatory authorities), as well as in case of gross violations of the protocol that may affect the results of the study.
• For Patients and Families
• For Researchers
• For Study Record Managers
• Customer Support
• Accessibility
• Viewers and Players
• Freedom of Information Act
• HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
• U.S. National Library of Medicine
• U.S. National Institutes of Health
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Nvidia hit with trademark lawsuit over 'Modulus' AI software

• Medium Text

• Modulus Financial said Nvidia's 'Modulus' software will cause confusion
• Financial software maker asked court to force Nvidia to drop name

Get a quick look at the days breaking legal news and analysis from The Afternoon Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, for Reuters Legal. He has previously written for Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters Practical Law and practiced as an attorney.

Read Next / Editor's Picks

Industry Insight Chevron

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

Karen Sloan

Henry Engler

Diana Novak Jones

• Popular Professionals
• Design & Planning
• Construction & Renovation
• Finishes & Fixtures
• Landscaping & Outdoor
• Systems & Appliances
• Interior Designers & Decorators
• Architects & Building Designers
• Design-Build Firms
• Kitchen & Bathroom Designers
• General Contractors
• Kitchen & Bathroom Remodelers
• Home Builders
• Roofing & Gutters
• Cabinets & Cabinetry
• Tile & Stone
• Hardwood Flooring Dealers
• Landscape Contractors
• Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers
• Home Stagers
• Swimming Pool Builders
• Lighting Designers and Suppliers
• 3D Rendering
• Sustainable Design
• Basement Design
• Architectural Design
• Universal Design
• Energy-Efficient Homes
• Multigenerational Homes
• House Plans
• Home Remodeling
• Home Additions
• Green Building
• Garage Building
• New Home Construction
• Basement Remodeling
• Stair & Railing Contractors
• Cabinetry & Cabinet Makers
• Roofing & Gutter Contractors
• Window Contractors
• Exterior & Siding Contractors
• Carpet Contractors
• Carpet Installation
• Flooring Contractors
• Wood Floor Refinishing
• Tile Installation
• Custom Countertops
• Quartz Countertops
• Cabinet Refinishing
• Custom Bathroom Vanities
• Finish Carpentry
• Cabinet Repair
• Custom Windows
• Window Treatment Services
• Window Repair
• Fireplace Contractors
• Paint & Wall Covering Dealers
• Door Contractors
• Glass & Shower Door Contractors
• Landscape Construction
• Land Clearing
• Garden & Landscape Supplies
• Deck & Patio Builders
• Deck Repair
• Patio Design
• Stone, Pavers, & Concrete
• Paver Installation
• Driveway & Paving Contractors
• Driveway Repair
• Asphalt Paving
• Garage Door Repair
• Fence Contractors
• Fence Installation
• Gate Repair
• Pergola Construction
• Spa & Pool Maintenance
• Swimming Pool Contractors
• Hot Tub Installation
• HVAC Contractors
• Electricians
• Appliance Services
• Solar Energy Contractors
• Outdoor Lighting Installation
• Landscape Lighting Installation
• Outdoor Lighting & Audio/Visual Specialists
• Home Theater & Home Automation Services
• Handyman Services
• Closet Designers
• Professional Organizers
• Furniture & Accessories Retailers
• Furniture Repair & Upholstery Services
• Specialty Contractors
• Color Consulting
• Wine Cellar Designers & Builders
• Home Inspection
• Custom Artists
• Columbus, OH Painters
• New York City, NY Landscapers
• San Diego, CA Bathroom Remodelers
• Minneapolis, MN Architects
• Portland, OR Tile Installers
• Kansas City, MO Flooring Contractors
• Denver, CO Countertop Installers
• San Francisco, CA New Home Builders
• Rugs & Decor
• Home Improvement
• Kitchen & Tabletop
• Bathroom Vanities
• Bathroom Vanity Lighting
• Bathroom Mirrors
• Bathroom Fixtures
• Nightstands & Bedside Tables
• Kitchen & Dining
• Bar Stools & Counter Stools
• Dining Chairs
• Dining Tables
• Buffets and Sideboards
• Kitchen Fixtures
• Wall Mirrors
• Living Room
• Armchairs & Accent Chairs
• Coffee & Accent Tables
• Sofas & Sectionals
• Media Storage
• Patio & Outdoor Furniture
• Outdoor Lighting
• Ceiling Lighting
• Chandeliers
• Pendant Lighting
• Wall Sconces
• Desks & Hutches
• Office Chairs
• View All Products
• Designer Picks
• Side & End Tables
• Console Tables
• Living Room Sets
• Chaise Lounges
• Ottomans & Poufs
• Bedroom Furniture
• Nightstands
• Bedroom Sets
• Dining Room Sets
• Sideboards & Buffets
• File Cabinets
• Room Dividers
• Furniture Sale
• Trending in Furniture
• View All Furniture
• Bath Vanities
• Single Vanities
• Double Vanities
• Small Vanities
• Transitional Vanities
• Modern Vanities
• Houzz Curated Vanities
• Best Selling Vanities
• Bathroom Vanity Mirrors
• Medicine Cabinets
• Bathroom Faucets
• Bathroom Sinks
• Shower Doors
• Showerheads & Body Sprays
• Bathroom Accessories
• Bathroom Storage
• Trending in Bath
• View All Bath
• Houzz x Jennifer Kizzee
• Houzz x Motivo Home
• How to Choose a Bathroom Vanity

• Patio Furniture
• Outdoor Dining Furniture
• Outdoor Lounge Furniture
• Outdoor Chairs
• Adirondack Chairs
• Outdoor Bar Furniture
• Outdoor Benches
• Wall Lights & Sconces
• Outdoor Flush-Mounts
• Landscape Lighting
• Outdoor Flood & Spot Lights
• Outdoor Decor
• Outdoor Rugs
• Outdoor Cushions & Pillows
• Patio Umbrellas
• Lawn & Garden
• Garden Statues & Yard Art
• Planters & Pots
• Outdoor Sale
• Trending in Outdoor
• View All Outdoor
• 8 x 10 Rugs
• 9 x 12 Rugs
• Hall & Stair Runners
• Home Decor & Accents
• Pillows & Throws
• Decorative Storage
• Faux Florals
• Wall Panels
• Window Treatments
• Curtain Rods
• Blackout Curtains
• Blinds & Shades
• Rugs & Decor Sale
• Trending in Rugs & Decor
• View All Rugs & Decor
• Pendant Lights
• Flush-Mounts
• Ceiling Fans
• Track Lighting
• Wall Lighting
• Swing Arm Wall Lights
• Display Lighting
• Table Lamps
• Floor Lamps
• Lamp Shades
• Lighting Sale
• Trending in Lighting
• View All Lighting
• Bathroom Remodel
• Kitchen Remodel
• Kitchen Faucets
• Kitchen Sinks
• Major Kitchen Appliances
• Cabinet Hardware
• Backsplash Tile
• Mosaic Tile
• Wall & Floor Tile
• Accent, Trim & Border Tile
• Whole House Remodel
• Heating & Cooling
• Building Materials
• Front Doors
• Interior Doors
• Home Improvement Sale
• Trending in Home Improvement
• View All Home Improvement
• Cups & Glassware
• Kitchen & Table Linens
• Kitchen Storage and Org
• Kitchen Islands & Carts
• Food Containers & Canisters
• Pantry & Cabinet Organizers
• Kitchen Appliances
• Gas & Electric Ranges
• Range Hoods & Vents
• Beer & Wine Refrigerators
• Small Kitchen Appliances
• Cookware & Bakeware
• Tools & Gadgets
• Kitchen & Tabletop Sale
• Trending in Kitchen & Tabletop
• View All Kitchen & Tabletop
• Storage & Organization
• Baby & Kids

• View all photos
• Dining Room
• Breakfast Nook
• Family Room
• Bed & Bath
• Powder Room
• Storage & Closet
• Outdoor Kitchen
• Bar & Wine
• Wine Cellar
• Home Office
• Popular Design Ideas
• Kitchen Backsplash
• Deck Railing
• Privacy Fence
• Small Closet
• Stories and Guides
• Popular Stories
• Renovation Cost Guides
• Fence Installation Cost Guide
• Window Installation Cost Guide
• Discussions
• Design Dilemmas
• Before & After
• Houzz Research
• View all pros
• View all services
• View all products
• View all sales
• Living Room Chairs
• Dining Room Furniture
• Coffee Tables
• Home Office Furniture
• Join as a Pro
• Interior Design Software
• Project Management
• Custom Website
• Lead Generation
• Invoicing & Billing
• Landscape Contractor Software
• General Contractor Software
• Remodeler Software
• Builder Software
• Roofer Software
• Architect Software
• Takeoff Software
• Lumber & Framing Takeoffs
• Steel Takeoffs
• Concrete Takeoffs
• Drywall Takeoffs
• Insulation Takeoffs
• Stories & Guides
• LATEST FROM HOUZZ
• HOUZZ DISCUSSIONS
• SHOP KITCHEN & DINING
• Kitchen & Dining Furniture
• Sinks & Faucets
• Kitchen Cabinets & Storage
• Knobs & Pulls
• Kitchen Knives
• KITCHEN PHOTOS
• FIND KITCHEN PROS
• Bath Accessories
• Bath Linens
• BATH PHOTOS
• FIND BATH PROS
• SHOP BEDROOM
• Beds & Headboards
• Bedroom Decor
• Closet Storage
• Bedroom Vanities
• BEDROOM PHOTOS
• Kids' Room
• FIND DESIGN PROS
• SHOP LIVING
• Fireplaces & Accessories
• LIVING PHOTOS
• SHOP OUTDOOR
• Pool & Spa
• Backyard Play
• OUTDOOR PHOTOS
• FIND LANDSCAPING PROS
• SHOP LIGHTING
• Bathroom & Vanity
• Flush Mounts
• Kitchen & Cabinet
• Outdoor Wall Lights
• Outdoor Hanging Lights
• Kids' Lighting
• Decorative Accents
• Artificial Flowers & Plants
• Decorative Objects
• Screens & Room Dividers
• Wall Shelves
• About Houzz
• Houzz Credit Cards
• Privacy & Notice
• Cookie Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Mobile Apps
• Copyright & Trademark
• For Professionals
• Houzz vs. Houzz Pro
• Houzz Pro vs. Ivy
• Houzz Pro Advertising Reviews
• Houzz Pro 3D Floor Planner Reviews
• Trade Program
• Buttons & Badges
• Your Orders
• Shipping & Delivery
• Return Policy
• Houzz Canada
• Review Professionals
• Suggested Professionals
• Accessibility
• Houzz Support
• COUNTRY COUNTRY

Home & House Stagers in Elektrostal'

Location (1).

• Use My Current Location

Popular Locations

• Albuquerque
• Cedar Rapids
• Grand Rapids
• Indianapolis
• Jacksonville
• Kansas City
• Little Rock
• Los Angeles
• Minneapolis
• New Orleans
• Oklahoma City
• Orange County
• Philadelphia
• Portland Maine
• Salt Lake City
• San Francisco
• San Luis Obispo
• Santa Barbara
• Washington D.C.
• Elektrostal', Moscow Oblast, Russia

Professional Category (1)

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

Featured Reviews for Home & House Stagers in Elektrostal'

• Reach out to the pro(s) you want, then share your vision to get the ball rolling.
• Request and compare quotes, then hire the Home Stager that perfectly fits your project and budget limits.

A home stager is a professional who prepares a house for sale, aiming to attract more buyers and potentially secure a higher selling price. They achieve this through the following techniques:

• Rearranging furniture to optimize space and functionality.
• Decluttering to create a clean and spacious look.
• Making repairs to address visible issues.
• Enhancing aesthetics with artwork, accessories, and lighting.
• Introducing new furnishings to update the style.

Their goal is to present the house in the best light. Home stagers in Elektrostal' help buyers envision themselves living there, increasing the chances of a successful sale.

• Decluttering
• Furniture Selection
• Space Planning
• Art Selection
• Accessory Selection

Benefits of the home staging in Elektrostal':

• Attractive and inviting: Staging creates a welcoming atmosphere for potential buyers.
• Faster sale: Homes sell more quickly, reducing time on the market.
• Higher sale price: Staging can lead to higher offers and appeal to a wider range of buyers.
• Showcasing best features: Strategic arrangement highlights positives and minimizes flaws.
• Stand out online: Staged homes capture attention in online listings.
• Emotional connection: Staging creates a positive impression that resonates with buyers.
• Easy visualization: Buyers can easily picture themselves living in a staged home.
• Competitive advantage: Staging sets your home apart from others on the market.
• Affordable investment: Cost-effective way to maximize selling potential and ROI.
• Professional expertise: Experienced stagers ensure optimal presentation for attracting buyers.

What does an Elektrostal' home stager do?

What should i consider before hiring an interior staging company, questions to ask potential real estate staging companies in elektrostal', moscow oblast, russia:, business services, connect with us.

Activision’s Speech Claim Fails in Case Over ‘Warzone’ Trademark

By Daniel Seiden

Activision Publishing Inc.'s and the publisher of a brower-based strategy game will continue their trademark dispute over use of the marks “Call of Duty: Warzone” and “Warzone,” a California federal district court said.

Activision publishes the popular military-themed first-person shooter series Call of Duty. In 2020, it released a free-to-play multiplayer game Call of Duty: Warzone, according to its 2021 complaint seeking declaratory relief.

The defendant, Warzone.com LLC, said it has rights to the mark “Warzone” based on continuous and ongoing use since 2017.

Here, Activision failed to show that use of “Warzone” is protected by the First Amendment, said ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.