Skip to main content

DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF FAB INDIA

RECENTLY, DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE HEARING A MATTER FOR TRADEMARK INJUNCTION GRANTED RELIEF OF INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF "FAB INDIA" RESTRAINING "FAB INDIA EMPORIUM" FROM USING THE SAID MARK BEING DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE PLAINITFF. THE COURT HELD THAT PRIMA FACIE CASE LIES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN THEIR FAVOR AND IF RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED PLAINTIFF SHALL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE PLAINTIFF 



BRIEF FACTS 

Plaintiff filed a commercial suit before Delhi High Court RESTRAINING defendants from using the mark "FABINDIA" as the same is alleged to be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a retail company engaged in production and retail of handcraft goods under the name and style of "FAB INDIA". The said company has been incorporated in the year 1960 and since then plaintiff has expanded its operations throughout the country. It is alleged that the plaintiff owns more than 100 trademark and has an annual turnover of approx. 100 Crores for the fiscal year 2022-23.

In January 2024, Plaintiff company came to know that defendants are selling the goods in Delhi region from the retail stores running in the name of "FAB INDIA EMPORIUM". It is alleged that they are selling the goods under the name which is deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff Company. This action on the part of defendants is likely to cause confusion in the general public. Further, the plaintiff has also filed certain invoices, which proves that defendants are actively using the said mark.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Plaintiff has come up in order to restrain the defendants to use the said mark. The Delhi High Court upon hearing the pleas of plaintiff gave the following observations:-

  • It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff has a long-standing repute in the market and the defendant by using the similar mark as that of Plaintiff is likely to cause confusion.
  • The Plaintiff was successful in establishing a prima facie case in their favor.
  • Balance of convenience is in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant.
  • Court further noted that in case interim injunction is not granted in favor of the Plaintiff, it shall cause irreparable loss to that of Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the aforesaid, Delhi High Court was pleased to allow the application seeking interim injunction on the following conditions:-

It was directed that the said order will be implemented post 3 months expiry, in order to give time to defendant to change their brand name. Further, defendants were directed to submit their annual sales certified by Chartered Accountant and also to disclose via affidavit date of commencement of their operations.  

 


 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

 Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi.   ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least.   DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...
1 comment
Read more

BENGALURU CONSUMER COURT IMPOSES PENALTY ON FLIPKART

RECENTLY BENGALURU DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DIRECTED ONLINE MERCHANT FLIPKART TO REFUND AN ANOUNT OF RS. 13,999/- ALONGWITH COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,000/- TO A 80-YEAR OLD FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY. BRIEF FACTS An 80 -Year Old Consumer ordered a treadmill on the online site of Opposite Party Flipkart. In compliance the treadmill was delivered to the consumer. At the time of installation of the product, it was revealed by the technician that the treadmill is faulty. On coming to know that the consumer returned the product to Flipkart and sought replacement. Initially Flipkart failed to replace the product but in some time, the replaced product was delivered to consumer, however, despite requests they failed to send the technician. When consumer tried to fix the same on its own, it was found that the product was of some other company. In other words, it was not the same product which has been initially ordered by the consumer. With no resolution, the consumer was left with no other option bu...
Post a Comment
Read more

KERALA HIGH COURT BARS ENTRY OF 10 YEAR GIRL FROM ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE  226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...
Post a Comment
Read more