Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Delhi High Court Dismisses Trademark Infringement Application for Lack of Specific Challenge Against Registered Mark FABIO

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, dismissed an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, concerning the plaintiff’s claim of infringement by the defendant’s use of the mark FAB!O against its OREO products. The plaintiff’s attempt to question the validity of the defendant’s FABIO registration was not entertained due to the absence of a specific challenge and tenable grounds in the initial pleadings.

Justice Shankar emphasized the necessity for clear and arguable grounds when challenging a trademark’s validity, stating, “No higher standard is required to be satisfied.” However, the court found that the plaintiff’s application could not stand as “there is no averment, anywhere in the plaint, that the defendant’s FABIO mark is invalid.”

The judgment, pronounced on November 3, 2023, highlighted the court’s role in interpreting statutory provisions, even if poorly structured, to harmonize with the intended purpose of the legislation. In this instance, the plaintiff’s reservation of rights to challenge the defendant’s mark was deemed insufficient. “The reservation, by the plaintiff, of its rights to challenge the validity of the mark FABIO can obviously not suffice as a plea that the defendant’s FABIO mark is invalid,” Justice Shankar clarified.

The case also underscored the importance of maintaining a consistent legal stance. The plaintiff’s conflicting arguments regarding the phonetic equivalence of FAB!O and FABIO were highlighted as a detrimental factor in their case.

This decision has set a precedent for future trademark infringement proceedings, where the specificity of challenges and the grounding of claims in pleadings will be crucial for the acceptance of applications under Section 124.

Representing the plaintiff, Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate, argued the case alongside his team. The defendant’s position was presented by Mr. J. Sai Deepak and his legal team. The court’s ruling directs attention to the detailed procedural requirements that must be met for such legal challenges to be considered.

Date of Decision: 03 November 2023

 INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC VS  PARLE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-03-Nov-23-Intercontinental_Great_Brands_vs_Parle_Product_Private_Limited.pdf"]

Latest Legal News