Author- Aryan Radhakrishnan
Similar to the seasonally appropriate clothing and accessories that serve as brand ambassadors, trademarks are significant assets. They make it easier for customers to immediately identify the country of origin of specific goods and services. Instead of reading the product description, customers can look up the Apple trademark online. Instead of asking a shop employee who made a particular pair of athletic shoes, customers might look for distinguishing features like stripes. By making things simpler to recognize, trademarks incentivize firms to spend on the caliber of their products. Simply because if a consumer tries one and is unhappy with the quality, it will be easy for them to avoid that brand in the future and buy a new one. Trademark law, which specifies how trademarks must be utilized, strengthens these goals.
The owner of the trademark has the right to sue anyone who makes use of it without authorization. At this point, you might be asking what exactly trademark infringement is. It can be difficult to distinguish between small business owners since they regularly replicate pre-existing trademarks either identically or marginally in an effort to reap large advantages with little work. The “likelihood of confusion” test is used to determine whether such small businesses’ use of trademarks in this manner amounts to trademark infringement. To better comprehend how trademark law functions, we will look at several well-known trademark infringement cases in India.
Who is Maaza’s single owner? The study makes use of the legal precedent from
- Coca-Cola Corporation v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.
Facts: Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., a company well-known for supplying mineral water in India, developed the beverage known as Maaza (thus, “Defendant”). The Coca-Cola Corporation and the defendant business agreed on November 12, 1993, whereby Bisleri gave up the rights to the formulation, the intellectual property (IPR), the know-how, and the goodwill for India in exchange for Coca-Cola bottling and marketing the mango fruit drink MAAZA.
After submitting a trademark registration request in Turkey in 2008, the defendant began marketing the identical fruit beverage under the name “MAAZA.” Coca-Cola requested a permanent injunction against them as well as compensation for passing off and trademark infringement because Bisleri had sold them the rights and they had obtained them from Bisleri.
Observations from the court: Bisleri received a temporary restraining order for using the MAAZA trademark illegally in India and advertising it for export.
- Akash Arora and others are accused by Yahoo! Inc.
Is Yahoo India similar to Yahoo?
Both the domain name “Yahoo.com” and the “Yahoo” registered trademark are owned by Yahoo Inc. Both the trademark and the domain name have developed a unique identity, goodwill, and reputation. Recent web-based services offered by Akash Arora (hereafter referred to as the “Defendants”) were nearly identical to those offered by the Plaintiffs under the name “Yahoo India.” By adopting a mark that was confusingly similar to their own, the defendant was charged by the plaintiffs with misrepresenting its goods and services as well as with breaking Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Following that, the plaintiffs asked for a long-term restraining order against the defendant.
The court determined that online users would be led to believe that both domain names originated from the same source. The defendant’s justification was that a disclaimer was visible on their website. It was emphasized that a mere notification was insufficient due to the fact that the use of a confusingly similar domain name cannot be stopped online and that it is irrelevant whether “Yahoo” is a term from the dictionary. The name has become known as unique and exceptional as a result of its connection to the plaintiff.
(India’s first big ruling addressing cybersquatting)
3. Will the Daddy Ever Be Free: GoDaddy and the Academy Awards?
A cyber-squatting controversy involves the Academy Awards and GoDaddy. Five years have passed since the fighting began. Because users could buy domain names that were “confusingly” identical to one another, such as 2011Oscars.com and others, Academy sued GoDaddy in 2010. Users have the option to “park” on these websites, take a cut of the revenue, and then split the profits with other users. In its initial court filing, The Academy claimed that 57 domain names provided by GoDaddy might be construed as misleading.
judicial judgments The choice was ultimately made in favor of cyber-squatting. The court found that GoDaddy’s domain transfers lacked the “required ill faith intent to benefit.”
As GoDaddy noted, you cannot rely on a third party to “protect” your registered trademark. (It is best to prevent such situations.)
4. Which side in the Zara Fashion War will Zara Food support?
Fact: Everyone should be familiar with the term ZARA because it is one of the most well-known and expensive fashion labels in the world. When a Spanish apparel manufacturer learned that a restaurant in Delhi was using a similar brand name, the issue was first made public in 2010. After that, ZARA Fashion filed a lawsuit against the restaurant, which the Delhi High Court heard.
Because of the court’s decision in favor of Zara Fashion, the name of the restaurant had to be altered (referred to as the “plaintiff” here).
5) Are you unaware of the distinction between Falcitab and Falcigo against Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd?
Facts: After the Cadila Group was reorganized under the Companies Act, pharmaceutical companies took over the operations of both the Appellant and the Respondent. Both businesses may use the name “Cadila.” The Indian Medicines Controller granted the Appellant Company authorization in 1996 to promote and market its “Falcigo” brand of cerebral malaria treatment throughout the whole country of India. In 1997, the Respondent was granted permission to market and distribute “Falcitab”-brand medications to treat cerebral malaria. The pills’ similar appearance may lead to confusion even though they are scheduled L drugs that were only designed to be distributed by medical professionals.
judicial rulings The Supreme Court determined that there was a risk of passing off and that it was a case of deceptive likeness after considering the criteria of the Trademarks Act of 1999 and Section 17-B of the Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Act of 1940.
A major decision dealt with the unauthorised use of an unregistered trademark.
Conclusion
Companies need to be aware of the importance of trademarks and the consequences of trademark infringement. In the current climate of intense competition, building a brand’s presence in the market is a difficult task. Without a registered or unregistered trademark, a brand cannot grow or maintain its value. Trademark protection is crucial because well-known brands are targets for businesses trying to generate huge profits. The aforementioned examples can be examined to learn vital details regarding potential conflicts and court rulings on such issues.
