Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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