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

95
0
Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

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.

Download Judgment

Share: