Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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