Skip to main content

Defend Your Trademark

 INTRODUCTION: 

A trademark is said to be infringed when a person, other than the registered proprietor, in the course of trade, in relation to the same good or services for which the mark is registered, user the same mark or a deceptively similar mark which is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the public or is like to cause impression of association of association with the registered trademark. 


The following are the types in which a trademark may be infringed:


DECEPTION OR CONFUSION AS TO GOODS: A person may buy the goods seeing a mark which he thinks belongs to a particular brand but it doesn’t. This is the most common type of confusion or deception.

DECEPTION OR CONFUSION AS TO TRADE ORIGIN: A person, by looking at a particular mark, may think that it is coming from the same source as some other goods bearing a similar mark which he is familiar with. The deception or confusion is with respect to the origin of the trade.

DECEPTION OF CONFUSION AS TO TRADE ORIGIN:Even though a person looking at the mark may not think that is the same as the one with a different brand in his mind, the similarity may make him believe that the two are connected in some way.

 

PASSING OFF OF TRADE MARK

This means that if one has a registered trademark and another sells goods or provides services under the same trademark without the permission of the first, there may be infringement of trademark. The law of passing off concerns unfair competition as in such a situation, the infringer benefits from the reputation of the origin associated with the registered trademark.

Passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trademark rightswhere the second user an unregistered trademark of the first user and in doing so, misguides the public into thinking that the goods or services are being offered by the first. Passing off essentially occurs where the reputation of one business is misappropriated by the other party carrying on the same business, such that party B misrepresents the reputation and damages the goodwill of party A.


Second business by the infringer leads to:


Misleading the public into thinking that the infringer’s goods are associated with the first one;

Damages to the first one in terms of money and reputation.



WHO CAN SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT?

The following people are eligible to sue in case there is any passing off or infringement:


Proprietor of the trademark;

Legal successor/heirs of the proprietor;

A registered user, only when the registered user has sent a notice to the infringer and consequently failed to take any action;

If it’s a joint proprietorship, any of the proprietors

A foreign proprietor a trademark registered in India, and when infringement occurs in India

The action against passing off lies in instituting a suit which is often combined into a suit for infringement and passing off to claim reliefs.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more