Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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