Skip to main content

Delhi HC Decrees Suit For Passing Off Against UAE Residents Whose Services Were Accessible Through Apps & Websites In Delhi

In ICON HEALTH AND FITNES, INC vs SHERIFF USMAN AND ANR, The Court was hearing a suit filed by ICON Health and Fitness Inc, which is a company incorporated under the laws of the United States. 

The subject matter of the suit was IHFI’s trademark ifit/ iFIT, which it uses for fitness devices such as wearable and software applications for fitness devices. The suit was filed against defendants who were offering a fitness related App under the name ifit on the App Store and on the Google Play Store. The defendants were also offering fitness bands for sale under the name IFIT on e-commerce portals such as www.amazon.in.

The Court noted that the defendants were using a mark identical to that of the plaintiff for identical devices and software and for identical class of consumers. Further, the channels through which the defendants were offering their devices and software were also identical to those of the plaintiff.

Justice Gupta, therefore, opined that the impugned mark had been adopted “with the specific intent to mislead the public into believing that a connection exists between the plaintiff and the defendants.”

The issue which arises for consideration is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit since the defendants are residing in United Arab Emirates and whether there is material to establish that the defendants are carrying on business from Delhi. Though the defendants are not residing in Delhi, however, the defendants are offering their fitness apps  and bands through App Store, Google Play Store and e-commerce portals like www.amazon.in which can be accessed and operated from all over the country, including from Delhi. Thus, it can be said that the defendants are carrying on business or working for gain at Delhi and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.

The Court further observed that IHFI enjoys trans-border reputation with respect to the trade mark IFIT, which is registered in various countries in the world. It then decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of IHFI, directing payment of costs of Rs. 1, 20, 000 as court fee and litigation expenses.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more