Skip to main content

Honest and concurrent usage cannot be a defence to a charge of infringement of trade mark

Citation : Kei Industries Limited vs Mr. Raman Kwatra & Anr., CS(COMM) 9/2021

Date of Judgment/Order : 17.05.2022

Court/Tribunal : High Court Of Delhi

Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

Background

KEI Industries Ltd, the plaintiff, alleges infringement, by the defendants, of its registered trademark “KEI”, of which it has registration both as a word mark and as the   device mark. Accordingly, the plaint seeks a decree of permanent injunction.

The Respondent sought protection among other issues under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, pleading honest and concurrent user of the impugned Mark, as his father OPK had been using the impugned Mark since 1966, and he was using the mark independently since 2008.

Judgment

After finding prima facie case of infringement by the Respondents, the HC looking into issue of the Doctrine of honest and concurrent usage. Section 12 is essentially a provision which enables the Registrar to permit registration of a mark which is identical or similar to an existing mark in respect of same or similar goods. It does not envisage honest and concurrent user as a defence to an allegation of infringement of a registered trade mark. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines, the HC observed that a provision which permits grant of concurrent registrations of identical or similar trade marks, if the use of the latter mark is honest and concurrent, cannot be used as a defence to a charge of infringement. Where a case of infringement is made out, therefore, injunction has necessarily to follow, and it is no defence to the defendant to urge that the user, by the defendant, of the allegedly infringing mark, was honest and concurrent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more