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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more