Filter

Open

Trademark Used Only for Exports Can be Protected

21

DEC

2020

Recently, the Delhi High Court heard a plea for granting an interim injunction in favour of UFO Contemporary, Inc. and against the defendants, Creative Kids Wear (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd and others. The plaintiff company is a manufacturer and seller of clothing for men, women, and children. The defendant company used to manufacture clothing for the plaintiff company till the year 2011. The plaintiff sought to enforce its intellectual property rights against the defendant to protect its registered trademark ‘UFO’ from infringement and passing off.

The plaintiff submitted that they have been using the infringed mark since 1968 and had it registered in 1982 in class 25 which relates to the description of goods comprising trousers, pants and blouses and shirts for men, women and children. The trademark registration was stated to be valid till 2030. They also own the domain name ‘ufojeans.com’ since 1988. The trademark had been marketed by many brand ambassadors in the past and has an international recognition.

The plaintiff hired third party entities to manufacture clothes in India which were to be exported and sold internationally. They had granted a license to use their trademark to the defendants for manufacturing clothes. Instead of using the mark as per the terms of the license, the defendants claimed ownership over the trademark ‘UFO’, which was disputed by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff severed its business relationship with the defendants and terminated the license to use agreement in 2011. They prohibited the defendants from using their mark in any manner and found a new third-party manufacturer.

In January 2019, the plaintiff came across the trademark of the defendants published in the Trade Marks Journal in 2018 on a 'proposed to be used' basis in class 25. Further inspection into the matter revealed that the defendants were selling products online under the mark ‘UFO’. Pursuant to this, a cease and desist notice was sent to the defendants to get them to stop using the mark. The plaintiff added that despite agreeing to change the logo, the defendants continued to use and sell products bearing the mark on various Indian online shopping websites like Amazon, Myntra, Tata Cliq, etc. Even after repeated notices and assurances to remove the mark, the defendants continued to use the plaintiff’s trademark.

In their response, the defendants stated that the mark they use on their products is an abbreviation of the term ‘Under Fourteen Only’. Further, they claimed that the plaintiff cannot enforce its proprietary rights over the mark in India as the plaintiff’s products are exported and are only manufactured and not sold in India. The plaintiff denied this claim by stating that as per the Indian trademark law, the use of trademark in India in relation to goods to be exported amounts to its use in India.

After hearing the counsels of both the parties, the court concluded that the defendants’ mark ‘UFO’ is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark which has garnered international goodwill and reputation. It added that the plaintiff’s denial of the defendant’s claim was correct as far as the law was concerned. Even if the trademark ‘UFO’ was only added on to the manufactured clothes which are supposed to be exported outside India, it amounted to the use of the trademark. The plaintiff did not have to show a commercial sale of goods in India to enforce its proprietary rights over the trademark.

Finally, the court held that the defendants committed a malicious act and took undue advantage from the established goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff since they have been in the business for decades. Even though the marks were visually different, there was a deceptive similarity between both the marks owing to them being phonetically identical. The plaintiff won the interim injunction in their favour while the defendants were directed to stop using the mark in any manner whatsoever.

This order of the court is welcome news brand owners, who have not targeted the Indian market for sales, but only manufacture their products for export outside India. The relevant provision of the Trademarks Act is given under section 29 which specifically states that to constitute the ‘use’ of a mark, it is enough that the brand owner ‘imports or exports goods under the mark’. Hence, a trademark proprietor can succeed in an action for IP protection if they establish that they have used the mark within the territory of India, in line with the provisions of the Indian trademark law.

About the Firm

LexOrbis
Address 709-710 Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001
Tel 91-11-2371 6565
Fax 91-11-2371 6556
Email manisha@lexorbis.com
Link www.lexorbis.com

Related Articles

22
OCT
2022
No Exclusivity over INNs – Delhi High Court Denies Injunctive Relief to Sun Pharma
22
OCT
2022
International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) are considered as generic names for pharmaceutical substa...

Read More

03
SEP
2022
Polymorphs Patentability : Looking Though Judicial Lens
03
SEP
2022
Story of exitance of polymorphism dates back to the year 1812 when Napoleon Bonaparte army wore h...

Read More

08
AUG
2022
Amendment of Product by Process Claim to a Process Complies Section 59(1)
08
AUG
2022
A recent judgement in matter of Nippon A&L Inc. V. The Controller of Patents dated 5th July 2022 ...

Read More

31
JUL
2022
Fraud in Obtaining Patent and Revocation
31
JUL
2022
Patent rights are statutory right created under the terms and conditions of the national patent l...

Read More

02
JUN
2022
Can a Reputable Mark Define Infringement?
02
JUN
2022
Recently, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief in a trademark dispute between RPG Enterprise...

Read More

22
APR
2022
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021
22
APR
2022
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was enacted for the conservation of biological diversity, sust...

Read More

25
MAR
2022
Rules on Intellectual Property Matters Notified by High Court of Delhi
25
MAR
2022
In a much-awaited development, the Delhi High Court has notified the “High Court of Delhi Rule...

Read More

07
MAR
2022
Competitor’s Dishonest Intention in Using Similar Word Can Be Injuncted
07
MAR
2022
Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant until disposal of...

Read More

17
JAN
2022
Supreme Court of India Further Extended the Suspension of Limitation Period/Timelines under General and Special Laws
17
JAN
2022
In view of the spike in new cases of Covid-19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has on...

Read More

08
DEC
2021
Non-speaking Refusal Order Quashed by the Bombay High Court
08
DEC
2021
The Bombay High Court, through an order dated 6th October 2021 in the case of Metso Outotec Corpo...

Read More

29
NOV
2021
Note on the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021
29
NOV
2021
The Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, will be introduc...

Read More

29
NOV
2021
Note on Joint Parliamentary Committee’s Report on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019
29
NOV
2021
The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lower House of the Indian Parliamen...

Read More

11
OCT
2021
Delhi High Court Proposes to Frame Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021
11
OCT
2021
In July, 2021, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court announced creation of Intellectua...

Read More

04
OCT
2021
Suspension of Limitation Period Due to COVID-19 Withdrawn
04
OCT
2021
On September 23, 2021, the Supreme Court withdrew the suspension of limitation that was in place sin...

Read More

03
AUG
2021
Surrender of a Patent Cause and Effect
03
AUG
2021
Voluntary surrender of a patent and its revocation in a court are two distinct actions through which...

Read More

13
JUL
2021
No Grant of Anti-Suit Injunction if Foreign Proceedings Not Oppressive or Vexatious: Delhi HC
13
JUL
2021
When proceedings are pending in a foreign court against an Indian citizen, such a person can requ...

Read More

16
JUN
2021
Pre-grant Order Appealable: IPAB Precedents Lost?
16
JUN
2021
Judiciously speaking precedential value of every decision of a higher court is high for deciding ...

Read More

26
MAY
2021
Court Recognizes The Seriousness of Medicinal Trademarks
26
MAY
2021
Recently, the Delhi High Court decided the case of Mankind Pharma Limited vs Novakind Bio Sciences P...

Read More

08
APR
2021
Can a Prefix Conceal Infringement?
08
APR
2021
The factor of distinctiveness of a trademark plays a vital role in deciding infringement suits. W...

Read More

07
APR
2021
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Abolished by Way of An Ordinance
07
APR
2021
The Central Government by way of an Ordinance, namely the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Con...

Read More

14
MAR
2021
Claiming Royalty Fee After Delay Cannot Be Sustained
14
MAR
2021
The High Court of Delhi in the case of Ozone Spa Pvt Ltd vs Jyotsna Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. delibe...

Read More

12
MAR
2021
Extension of Limitation under COVID-19 Comes to an End_Supreme Court Order Dated March 8, 2021
12
MAR
2021
In view of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Supreme Court of India by an order d...

Read More

07
FEB
2021
‘Knowledge Workers’ and Trade Secret!
07
FEB
2021
Knowledge drives the companies to gain competitive edge over the similarly placed companies in the m...

Read More

21
DEC
2020
SMEs and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
21
DEC
2020
Basics of SEPs A technical standard is a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or te...

Read More

21
OCT
2020
Significant Achievements Witnessed by The IP Office (2014-15 to 2019-20)
21
OCT
2020
National IPR Policy unveiled in the year 2016 has brought out such remarkable changes in the IP. Ad...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2