TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the defendants' use of BLOOMBERG as part of their corporate names and in relation to dissimilar business activities amounted to infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; (ii) whether such use amounted to passing off and justified interim injunctive relief.
Issue (i): whether the defendants' use of BLOOMBERG as part of their corporate names and in relation to dissimilar business activities amounted to infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Analysis: Section 29(4) was treated as a dilution-based infringement provision for use of an identical or similar mark in relation to dissimilar goods or services, requiring the plaintiff to show reputation in India, use without due cause, and detriment to or unfair advantage from the mark's distinctive character or repute. The Court held that the expression "mark" includes a name, and therefore use of a registered mark as part of a corporate name may attract infringement. It further held that Section 29(5) is not exhaustive of all such situations and does not exclude relief under Section 29(4) where the business is in different goods or services. On the facts, the plaintiff showed prima facie reputation and the defendants' adoption of the mark was found not to be honest or justified.
Conclusion: The plaintiff established a prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(4), and the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue (ii): whether such use amounted to passing off and justified interim injunctive relief.
Analysis: The plaintiff showed prima facie that BLOOMBERG had trans-border and Indian reputation, that the defendants adopted the identical mark as the prominent feature of their corporate names, and that such use was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants' real estate and related activities were connected with the plaintiff. The Court held that a well-known mark may be protected even where the parties operate in different fields, and that a disclaimer would not adequately remove confusion where every defendant company used the same prominent prefix. The balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm were held to favour restraint of continued use pending trial.
Conclusion: The plaintiff established a prima facie case of passing off, and the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Final Conclusion: Interim injunction was warranted against continued use of BLOOMBERG by the defendants, together with directions to alter the corporate names and refrain from further use of the mark in the impugned manner during the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Use of a registered mark as part of a corporate name may be restrained under Section 29(4) even when the defendant's business is in dissimilar goods or services, if the mark has reputation in India and the impugned use is without due cause and causes detriment to or unfair advantage from the mark's distinctive character or repute.
TaxTMI 
