Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Violation of Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court Orders Cancellation of 'GLEE' Trademark Due to Deceptive Similarity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on 11th December, 2023, has ordered the cancellation of the 'GLEE' trademark, citing deceptive similarity and a violation of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

The court's decision came in response to two petitions filed by Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd., seeking the cancellation of the mark 'GLEE' bearing registration numbers 3675390 and 3770965 under classes 11 and 7. These marks were registered in favor of Respondent No. 1, Kunal Singh, and were used for products such as hand mixers, electric kitchen mixers, food mixers, and grinders.

The Petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of electrical and non-electrical appliances, had been using the mark 'GLEN' since 1998 and had registered it in various classes, including 7, 9, 11, and 21.

The court noted the Commercial Court's previous judgment, which had found clear confusion between the Petitioner's mark 'GLEN' and Respondent No. 1's mark 'GLEE.' The Commercial Court's findings included, "The customers of the plaintiff and defendants belonged to the same class. A consumer of ordinary prudence is bound to be misled by the trademark of the defendants, believing it to be the trademark of the plaintiff."

Furthermore, the court highlighted the violation of Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, stating, "In any event, the registration of the mark 'GLEE' would be violative of Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999."

The court also referred to other legal precedents, such as the case of Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v. Deepak Arora and Another, which emphasized the importance of distinctive character in trademarks, stating, "The mark 'BLUE HEAVEN' is thus an inherently distinctive mark."

Additionally, the court cited the case of Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Trading and Anr., noting, "The adoption of a deceptively similar mark for identical goods is done with the sole purpose of deceiving unwary customers and riding upon the goodwill and reputation of the Petitioner's mark."

Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the 'GLEE' trademark, stating, "Considering the facts of these two cases, the trademark registrations of the Respondent are liable to be cancelled."

Date of Decision: 11 December, 2023

GLEN APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. VS KUNAL SINGHM, B.I.D. AND ANR.

Latest Legal News