Skip to main content

definition of trademark with case law

 Definition Of Trademark with case laws

A trademark acts an separate and unique identification of brand .
People nowadays want to earn money quickly ,without any innovative and new business idea of their own , so , they copy the ideas and innovations of already established companies intending to manipulate the mind of public . Already established companies have goodwill and a already set customer base .
People take advantage of the already established business name and open a business with a slight change in their brand or logo or phrase or name viz. very familiar to the original brand name , slightly different from the original brand name  . They depict it to the public as it the original or branch of the brand by providing the same services or goods .
In the case of Starbucks v Sardarbuksh , Starbucks corporation originated in USA , it has a world wide demand and chain. It renders coffee drinking services and goods. Sardarbuksh , the respondent was accused of copying the brand. It was established in Delhi in the year 2015 and provided coffee service and goods along with 5 outlets.
Here , Sardarbuksh co. was accused of copying the logo of Starbucks , in a way that Starbucks logo consists of green color with mermaid with long strands of hair , while Sardarbuksh had a similar kind of logo which was green in color and had a man with turban on his head along with hair strands.
So, In this case we can clearly observe Sardarbuksh tried to manipulate the market of mind of public by coming up with a very similar sounding name and logo rendering the exact same service and goods of coffee.

A registered  logo , name , phrases which represents a brand , it is usually found on the goods of the brand .
So , Trademark gives a separate identity to the business , it even protects the innovative ideas and brand name created and owned by the owners of company to give their company a name as well as symbol which indicates their services and goods. It also helps the customer to differentiate it with the other companies and recognize the brand name. A trademark indicates a lot about the brand , its services and nature.
Example of a trademark includes the logo of blackberry  , the phrase “do it” for Nike brand. It also plays an important role in case of reference of a good or place of service. For example – Isha wearing clothes of Zara , which is of great quality can recommend it to other by telling the name of the brand or logo. Due to its distinctive name the customer wont have to wander to find the same ,but can go according to the reference and brand.

A trademark should be registered in order to retain the benefits and rights of registration. First and fore most a suit for infringement can be filed if the trademark is registered.
Registration of trademark can be denied of certain backgrounds
1- Absolute grounds for refusal of registration (Section – 9)
2-Relative ground for refusal of registration (Section -11)
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