Inttl Advocare on LinkedIn: Ceat Limited v. Apollo Tyres Limited (2025)

In a contempt petition adjudicated by the Bombay High Court, the Respondents were imposed with a fine of Rs 50 Lakh upon being found to have wilfully disobeyed the Court’s directive in an earlier ruling. Pidilite Industries Ltd. (Petitioner) is a leading Indian multinational company renowned for its flagship product, “FEVICOL”, which is a household name in India for its strong adhesive qualities. Petitioner initiated legal proceedings against the Respondents, Premier Stationery Pvt. Ltd., for trade mark infringement for using packaging and branding similar to Petitioner’s trade marks for its stationery products, which led to consumer confusion. The case was settled through a consent order by Court, where Respondent agreed to cease the infringing activities. Despite the settlement, Petitioner claimed that Respondent had violated the consent order, prompting the instant contempt petition to enforce the terms and address the ongoing infringement.The Court reaffirmed that consent orders are legally binding and must be strictly adhered to in order to prevent ongoing violations and protect intellectual property rights. It reviewed evidence from Petitioner showing that Respondent had continued using similar packaging and branding despite the consent order, constituting a breach of the agreed terms and resulting in ongoing consumer confusion and brand dilution. The decision reinforced the necessity for trade mark holders to rigorously defend their intellectual property rights. The Court imposed stringent remedies and sanctions on Respondent to enforce the consent order and address ongoing infringement, ensuring full compliance with the legal agreement.#legaljudgment #bombayhighcourt #pidiliteindustries #trademarklaw #intellectualproperty #trademarkprotection #trademarkact #trademarkdispute

45

Do you think defaming other brands will help grow your own business? 🤔 In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has granted a temporary injunction against Apollo Tyres, halting an advertisement campaign accused of trademark infringement against CEAT Tyres. CEAT challenged a YouTube video promoting Apollo’s Apterra AT2 tyre, which allegedly depicted its CROSSDRIVE AT tyre as worn out while obscuring the CEAT trademark.The court found that Apollo’s portrayal could mislead consumers and harm CEAT’s established brand reputation. This ruling underscores the importance of trademark protection in advertising practices, affirming CEAT’s investment in its unique product identity. The case, scheduled for a full hearing on October 11, could set critical precedents for advertising standards within the tyre industry and beyond. As such, the court's decision marks a pivotal moment in safeguarding brand integrity and consumer trust in the competitive marketplace.What do you think about this kind of malpractice in the marketing industry? Comment me with your opinion, and also follow for more such content.#TrademarkInfringement #ApolloTyres #CEATTyres #LegalUpdate #BrandProtection #AdvertisingLaw #ConsumerTrust #TyreIndustry #IntellectualProperty #BombayHighCourt#MarketingEthics #BrandIntegrity #LegalNews #ConsumerAwareness #IndustryStandards #Surat #Suratlawyers

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed an appeal filed by Premier SPG and WVG Mills Pvt. Ltd. (“Appellant”) against an order of the Trade Marks Registry (“Registry”) rejecting its opposition against The Football Association Premier League Limited’s (“Respondent”) PREMIER LEAGUE logo, in Class 25.The Registry had, in its order, observed that there was no visual, structural, or phonetic similarity, between the rival marks, and that the only common element between the two marks, i.e., PREMIER, is generic, which no one could monopolize. However, the Appellant claimed that it is a part of the Premier Group that has an international reputation, which has been built over several decades, for quality goods in the clothing industry, and that its PREMIER-formative marks were registered in relation to manufacturing, exporting, and marketing of yarn, clothing, hosiery, suiting, textiles, etc., much prior to the Respondent’s filings. The court took into consideration the Respondent’s registration for the BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE Device mark (which was unopposed by the Appellant), the Respondent’s long use of its marks without any objection from the Appellant, the presence of other third-party marks on the Register of Trade Marks containing the word PREMIER, as well as the Respondent’s worldwide repute and registrations in foreign jurisdictions.The court opined that there was no deceptive similarity between the rival marks. It reiterated the anti-dissection rule of comparing rival marks, emphasizing that the Appellant could not have a monopoly over the word PREMIER, and also noted that PREMIER was also not the dominant element of the PREMIER LEAGUE logo. Besides the word PREMIER, the Respondent’s mark incorporated the suffix LEAGUE, a lion wearing a crown, and a football, which indicated that the Respondent’s goods pertained to the football sector. The court also noted that PREMIER refers to the category of a league, which, in the context of football, has acquired and amassed worldwide recognition, goodwill and immediate re-call. Based on the above, the court agreed with the Registry’s order and dismissed the appeal.Click link below to know morehttps://lnkd.in/gBD3bwRS#TrademarkDispute #IntellectualProperty #DelhiHighCourt #PremierLeagueTrademark #SCIP

16

NCLT: Judicial Pronouncement April 02, 2024 Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd & Others (Appellant) Vs. Chief Materials Manager, South Eastern Railway & CCI (Respondents) - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Competition Appeal (AT) NO.19/2020Even an attempt to rig a bid is sufficient to attract the definition of cartelization under Section 2(c) of the Competition Act, 2002.In the above case Hon’ble NCLAT relienced placed upon the case of State of Maharashtra V Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansar and others (2013) 12 SCC 17, wherein it was held in a proceeding under the Competition Act, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Admittedly, all the statements are made by witnesses who were the authors/recipients of the emails and have confirmed their interaction with each other. Admittedly the appellant had never challenged the correctness of statements made by the other members and never sought a permission to cross examine them. All the evidence has been construed holistically by the Commission before giving its justification. The oral statements and the email are completely consistent with each other. Moreso in view of the very definition of cartelization in Section 2(c) of the Act, even an attempt to rig a bid is sufficient to attract the provision.In alleged anti-competitive conduct in the Beer Market in India, Suo -Moto Case No.6 of 2017 and in Federation of Corrugated Box Manufacturers of India etc., Case No.24 of 2017, it has clearly been held in bid rigging cases mere exchange of information is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. The Appellant argued it had never sent any such email and only ‘received’ such emails and mere ‘receipt’ of the emails does not amount to ‘exchange’ of emails, is not acceptable. The appellant continuously ‘received’ emails for over five years without any protest and never requested the cartel to stop sending such emails to it.

1

𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐝𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬In 2017, Afreen Fatima Zaidi sued Yash Raj Films after watching 'Fan' and not finding the advertised song "Jabra Fan." Initially dismissed, her case gained traction when the Maharashtra consumer commission ruled in her favor. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) later labeled the exclusion of the song from the film as an unfair trade practice.Yash Raj Films appealed, leading to the Supreme Court intervening in September 2021. Justices PS Narsimha and Aravind Kumar scrutinized whether promotional activities establish a contractual relationship and if omitting promotional content warrants compensation.On 22/04/2024, the Supreme Court overturned the NCDRC's 2020 directive, which ordered compensation for Zaidi. The court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not constitute offers, thus not transforming into enforceable agreements. They emphasized that advertisements serve informational and creative purposes and do not guarantee specific content in the final product. Therefore, the absence of the song did not amount to deficient service. The court also stated that the promotional trailer's content does not fall under unfair trade practices as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This ruling clarifies that promotional materials such as trailers are not binding contracts but rather marketing tools. It underscores the distinction between advertising and contractual obligations, providing clarity for future disputes in the entertainment industry.#supremecourt #entertainmentindustry #consumerrights #legaldisputes #filmmarketing #contractlaw #consumerprotection #promotion #fairtradepractices #judicialclarification #ncdrc

8

What is trade mark use and what is not is shaping up to be such an important issue in trade mark law going forwards. It really poses some very fundamental questions about the function and nature of trade marks. See our article on the latest case from the Full Court…

32

2 Comments

🌟 Breaking News: In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has granted well-known trademark status to 'HALDIRAM' and its iconic red oval-shaped mark! 🏛️ This ruling, issued in the case of Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd vs. Berachah Sales Corporation [NUCN:2024 DHC 2517], marks a significant milestone in trademark law.🍲 The Court's decision recognizes 'HALDIRAM' as a dynamic, well-known mark, extending its protection beyond geographical boundaries to include food items, restaurants, and eateries. This move aims to safeguard the brand's consumer goodwill and trust in the competitive food and snacks industry.🔍 This ruling is not just a legal victory; it reflects the Court's forward-thinking approach to trademark integrity. Drawing parallels with landmark cases like “Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. S.A. Food Products & Ors” (2019) and “N R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation” (1996), the Court's decision underscores the importance of spill-over reputation in brand protection.🛡️ With this decision, the Delhi High Court reaffirms its commitment to upholding trademark integrity and ensuring robust protection for brands in an ever-evolving market landscape.#TrademarkLaw #BrandProtection #DelhiHighCourt #Haldiram #LegalNews #AUMIRAH

36

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula restrained Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited dealing in products bearing the marks “CD TIGER' as against Plaintiff Mallcom India Ltd.'s registered trade mark “TIGER” in the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2.Key observations:1. Defendants’ justifications for adopting the word “TIGER” in their trade mark are untenable. It is established that Plaintiff had not only applied for, but also secured registration of the trade mark “TIGER” well before the Defendants began using it. This prior registration necessitated that the Defendants should have conducted a thorough search of the trade mark register before adopting any mark incorporating the word ‘TIGER.’ Thus, the plea of honest adoption of arbitrary term ‘TIGER’ for safety shoes cannot be accepted. Rather, it demonstrates clear intent to misrepresent their goods;2. The word ‘TIGER,’ which is the dominant element in both trademarks, makes the Defendants’ mark deceptively similar to that of Plaintiff’s, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers;3. Plaintiff is the prior user of the trade mark “TIGER” and prior registrant of the trade mark “TIGER”; they have been continuously using and promoting the trade mark “TIGER” since 2004 and as a primary brand since 2010 and has garnered significant goodwill and reputation in the said trade mark;4. Defendants’ use of the impugned mark is subsequent and therefore, Defendants’ adoption of the impugned mark is prima facie mala fide and dishonest; the competing marks being deceptively similar to each other is bound to create confusion amongst the general public and hence the Defendants’ adoption of the impugned mark prima facie violates the Plaintiff’s common law rights in the trade mark “TIGER”.In addition to the above, the court directed Defendants to takedown the website hosted on the domain name www.cdtiger.com. Further, considering the fact that Defendants’ mark was registered since 2014, the court permitted Defendants to deplete their existing stock of goods, which are fully manufactured, bearing the mark “CD TIGER/ ”, within four weeks, and to file an affidavit giving complete details of stock, including batch numbers, of the goods manufactured, within two weeks. It clarified that no further manufacturing shall be undertaken under the impugned mark. The suit is listed in July.#trademarks #passingoff #brandprotection #footwear #intellectualproperty #iplawyers #delhihighcourt

21

A recent UK trade mark opposition by BeReal Wear Ltd against BeReal. was, at its heart, a straightforward one involving identical or near identical marks and identical or highly similar goods. Unsurprisingly, the Opponent succeeded on all grounds.However, what made the case unusual and interesting was the Hearing Officer's decision not to consolidate this opposition with either of the two late-filed invalidity actions by the Applicant, and the impact these had on the status of this latest outcome.The Hearing Officer did decide to make the resulting decision in the opposition – if successful – provisional pending the outcome of the invalidity action. It is notable and perhaps a cause for concern that the Hearing Officer felt compelled to make that provisional status conditional. Geoff Weller explains more in an article for The Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, and the significance that this case has for brands going forwards...https://lnkd.in/eDbv5su8#trademarks #intellectualproperty #law

8

𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐎𝐂 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 & 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚, 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐎𝐂 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐤 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 (𝐔𝐋𝐂) 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 (𝐋𝐋𝐂)Facts:1. Reebok India is an Indian Company - sells footwear, apparel & sports equipment through franchisee based stores - the equity investment in which is done by the Reebok, the American parent company.2. October 2014 - Applied before ROC Delhi & Haryana for converting from ULC to LLC (Section 18 of Companies Act, 2013)3. While the matter was still being considered by the ROC, Indian Government brought out Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2016, in which some checks were introduced as to which ULCs shall not be eligible for conversion into LLC (Rule 37).4. October 2016 - ROC rejected the conversion application.5. 2017 - The company filed a writ before Delhi High Court challenging the rejection.6. March 2020 - Delhi HC ordered ROC to reconsider the matter.7. June 2020 - ROC invited and heard the company.8. August 2020 - ROC rejected the application. Again. Reasons included pending SFIO prosecutions for issues such as falsification of books & accounts & financial statements, serious adverse comments from Auditors, non-compliance of Rule 37 such as negative net worth, no public advertisement, no NOC from creditors/other stakeholders, etc.9. 2021 - The company challenged this order. Again.10. February 2024 - Delhi High Court upheld ROC’s Order.It’s an illuminating judicial decision especially when it comes to topics such as protection of interests of the creditors of an ULC, the power of the sovereign to make retrospective legislation and the applicability of a legal provision on a matter that was pending even before the provision came into force.I suggest reading the order in its entirety to understand the ROC’s decision, the company’s grievances & the court’s deliberations & path to final decision.Case ref: W.P.(C) 1546/2021 & CM APPL. 34108/2023Order date: 16.02.2024PS: Note the name of the company. There are no terms such as “Private” or “Limited” in it. And it’s not a typo. :)Another fun fact: Reebok India Company is now known as Refop India Company. Don’t ask me why.Image source: Google Images

41

4 Comments