MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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