Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 1065 - DELHI HIGH COURTUse/infringement of trade mark - Goodwill and reputation - Suit for permanent injunction, damages for infringement of trade mark WORLD BOOK, passing off, dilution, unfair competition, delivery up, and rendition of account or damages against the defendant - use of domain name - main case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is not entitled to use the trade name/trademark WORLD BOOK as part of defendant’s corporate name or trade name - Principles of Balance of Conveniens. HELD THAT:- The defendant’s entitlement to use other corporate name with different brand name cannot be denied if the defendant would join any book fair or seminar under different corporate name and trademark. The plaintiffs’ objection in the present case is with respect to the use of the mark WORLD BOOK by the Defendant as a trade name/mark and/or domain name. The logo of the Defendant contained the trade mark/trade name WORLD BOOK of the Plaintiffs. The defendant has no right to use the trade mark/trade name of the plaintiffs in any form whatsoever. The use of the domain name WORLDBOOKCOMPANY.IN on the part of the defendant is also likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of unwary class of customers. The business of the Plaintiffs’ is likely to be diverted to the defendant on account of features of the domain which contain the mark of the Plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ mark WORLD BOOK in the present case is highly distinctive; it has acquired residual goodwill and reputation. It is a registered trademark. Hence, mere defences raised by the defendant are moonshine and flimsy which are against the law. In view of the facts, circumstances and the evidence filed on record, the plaintiffs establish a prima facie case for the confirmation of the ex-parte order of interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, if the interim order is not continued, the plaintiffs would suffer loss and irreparable injury. On the other hand, the defendant is also under injunction for the last more than one year and four months. Their adoption of the name is not honest. The defendant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is dismissed.
|