Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the defendants' use of the mark TATA on pressure cookers amounted to infringement of a well-known trade mark and passing off, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief and damages.
Analysis: The mark TATA had acquired the status of a well-known trade mark through long, extensive and exclusive use, supported by registrations and judicial recognition. Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protected registered marks with reputation in India against use on dissimilar goods where such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the mark. The impugned mark was found to be identical or deceptively similar, used on goods unrelated to the plaintiff's own, and likely to convey an unjustified association with the plaintiff. The record, including the local commissioner's report and unrebutted evidence, established dishonest adoption, dilution, and consumer deception.
Conclusion: The use of TATA on the impugned goods constituted both infringement and passing off, and the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction, destruction of infringing material, and compensatory damages.