Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 284 - HC - Companies LawTrademark infringement - Trademark ‘4T PREMIUM’ - Use of deceptively similar trademark - Held that:- A perusal of the product of the Plaintiff shows that it uses the name of its company before 4T PREMIUM, that is, VALVOLINE 4T PREMIUM and not simplicitor ‘4T PREMIUM’. Similarly the Defendant has though used the word 4T PREMIUM however, the container also depicts its logo and the company name AGIP. Packaging and colouring etc. of the two products are totally different - an action for passing off is a Common Law remedy being in substance an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person of his own goods as those of another, that is not the gist of an action for infringement. The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered proprietor of a registered trade mark for the vindication of the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods. It was further held that where the similarity between the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s mark is too close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the Court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the Plaintiff’s rights are violated. Defendant is using the word “AGIP” and its logo along with “4T PREMIUM” and not simplicitor “4T PREMIUM”. Further even the Plaintiff is using the word “VALVOLINE” with “4T PREMIUM” and not “4T PREMIUM”. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to grant interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant - Decided against Appellant.
|