Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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