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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more