Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 685 - DELHI HIGH COURTTrademark infringement - Use of confusingly similar mark - Held that:- Lease deed entered into by the plaintiff for acquiring on lease a commercial premises in South Delhi for the purpose of running a branch restaurant under the trademark. The defendant’s restaurant is also situated at a mall in South Delhi. Consequently, the use of the impugned mark by the defendant is likely to create confusion and is likely deceive people. There has been no explanation forthcoming from the defendant as to why the impugned mark was adopted by the defendant. It is hard to believe that the defendant – which is itself in the business of restaurant and hospitality management, would not have been aware of the plaintiff’s trademark and restaurant. It appears that the defendant adopted the impugned mark with malafide intention to free ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff. This act of the defendant is likely to dilute the mark of the plaintiff and lead to loss of goodwill. Furthermore, the plaintiff risks losing reputation if the defendant does not uphold the standard of service as offered by the plaintiff as a consumer is likely to be deceived into believing that the goods offered by the defendant actually belong to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff needn’t prove actual damages suffered by him, it is imperative that the Court while awarding damages considers the averments made in the plaint coupled with an assessment of the extent of damage likely caused or to be caused. The plaintiff avers that it found out about the proposed launch of the defendant’s restaurant in May 2008. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2008 granted an exparte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from using the mark “THE NOODLE HOUSE”. Keeping in view the short duration between the filing of the suit and grant of injunction, in addition to the fact that the plaintiff has not placed anything on record to establish whether the defendant’s restaurant was launched at all, this Court is not inclined to award damages - Decided in favour of Appellant.
|