Trademark Injunction in India – Trademark Registration in Coimbatore

Trademark Injunction

A trademark refers to a unique identity that enables you to make your brand or product a bunch of others. A trademark has its description as a graphical representation of a company’s goods or services to distinguish them from others. This may include colors, shapes, names, brands, signatures, letters, words, numbers or any combination. It has specifications under Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. One can apply for a trademark for a logo, word, slogan, smell, sound, graphics or combinations of color; however, most businesses consider trade online trademark registration for their logo, tagline and brand registration. If something happens out of the ordinary, then they have to re-think their position. A registered trademark is an intangible asset to your business and serves as a protective shield against your investments and efforts to create a brand or registered logo. In India, trademark registration is done by the Comptroller General PF Patent. The Trademark Act, 1999, gives you the right to take legal action against those who try to copy or misuse your trademark. Trademark Injunction in India – Trademark Registration in Coimbatore is what we are going to be discussed here and mentioned documents.

Trademark Injunction in India

Matters are settled within the period prescribed by the Supreme Court. So, to begin with, orders are common in every branch of law and are governed by the Special Relief Act. However, the procedure for seeking an order is laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. There are essentially two types of orders under consideration under the Special Relief Act – Temporary and Permanent.

When a claim is finally ordered a permanent order is usually given on the merits of the claim. According to this decree, the plaintiff may impose a special right on the mark compared to the accused against whom the use of any law mark or commission is strictly prohibited which is only contrary to the rights enjoyed by the plaintiff.

A temporary restraining order, as the name implies, is for a specified period or up to another court order and may be granted at any stage of the claim. This is very worrying for any aggrieved party as long as the court does not grant a temporary order, the other party may continue to use this mark and will be against the intent to file or pass a claim for this violation. As we know, time is of the essence in such cases as there is a danger of losing reputation and goodwill. However, getting an interim injunction from the court is not a child’s play. The plaintiff will have to make a case with the following elements.

Trademark Injunction Legal Requirements

Obtaining a restraining order usually requires the trademark owner to prove the following:

The plaintiff is likely to win based on the grandmother’s qualifications.

If the restraining order is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer insufficient damages.

The balance of damages is in the plaintiff’s favor

The prohibition order serves the interest of the people.

Often the dire need to meet is an irreparable loss. The irreversible loss is that financial compensation and other legal remedies will not adequately repair the injuries caused by the violation and, therefore, enforceable relief is required.

In the past, courts have assumed that once trademark owners have demonstrated the likelihood of success in their case, they will suffer irreparable damage. However, in recent years, the courts have become significantly tougher when it comes to conclusions that do not harm the courts when deciding whether to issue a restraining order in intellectual property cases. California’s U.S. Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have ruled that courts should not consider irreparable damage, but should carefully examine whether irreversible damage will occur in every situation.

When ordering relief is sought, despite growing barriers against trademark owners, we know how to develop a legal strategy to prove irreparable damage whenever possible. Specifically, we can identify and present evidence of irreversible damage, which may include:

Significant evidence showing the potential for confusion

Evidence of actual confusion

Evidence showing the goodwill and reputation of the trademark

There is evidence that the trademark is being used to sell a secondary product or service

There is evidence that the use of defendants has undermined your ability to market your own product or service

There is evidence that the defendant will not be able to pay financial damages as a remedy

A single judge bench comprising Manmohan Singh. The plaintiff filed a claim for permanent restraining order against the defendant for violating the trademark.

Real time case

It was an accepted fact that the plaintiff owned a register of trademarks SUMEET and SUMEET TRADITIONAL for his power powered kitchen mix for domestic use. This mark has been used by the mother of the director of the plaintiff company since 1963. Trademark registration under class 7 of the Trade and Merchant Marks Act 1958 was approved in 1970 and handed over to the company in 1981. The defendant company was unofficially accused of selling the same mixes with the same trademarks. The parties had earlier contracted for the subcontract for the production of mixtures of 2 specific models. As the defendant was violating the contract by selling the goods under the plaintiff’s trademark, the contract was terminated. The plaintiff submitted that the use of the marks stated by the defendant after the termination of the contract was likely to cause confusion and deception among the purchasers.

The High Court used the record and on the appreciation of the evidence the court was of the opinion that the appeal claim was subject to judgment. In the court’s opinion, the triple identity test satisfied. Is tested –

First, the use of the same or deceptively similar trademark.

Second, the use of trademarks in relation to similar goods.

Finally, the use of trademarks in relation to similar goods having the same trade channels (products sold through the same trading channels).

From the evidence on record, according to the court, it was clear that despite the termination of the contract, the defendant improperly attached the plaintiff’s trademark to his product which amounted to a violation of it. Accordingly, a claim was made in favor of the plaintiff with actual costs. [Sumit Research and Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cipra Appliances, 2018 SCC Online Dell 11341, dated 14-09-2018]. Hence Trademark injunction is yet another aspect in Trademark.