SC: Filing a False FIR Alone does not Amount to Abetment of Suicide  ||  SC: Police Cannot Probe Offences under Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act  ||  SC: UP Gangsters Act Creates no Offence, Perpetuates Violence against Citizens  ||  SC: Caste Abuse in Private Space without Public Presence is not SC/ST Act Offence  ||  SC Reduces Judicial Service Practice Norm to 1 Year; Mandates Training & Clerkship  ||  SC: Wife’s Income does not Reduce Father’s Duty to Maintain Children  ||  SC: Government Cannot Revisit PSC Eligibility Decision When Service Rules Make it Final  ||  Allahabad HC: S.34 IPC Applies if Co-Accused Shares a ‘Functional Relationship’ with Offence  ||  P&H High Court: PSC Cannot Introduce Minimum Interview Marks After Medical Faculty Selection Begins  ||  MP HC: Comprehensive Insurance Doesn't Mean Unlimited Passenger Liability Without Terms    

Retail Royalty Company v. Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (23 Sep 2015)

Court declines exclusive use of ‘Eagle’ in trade mark

MANU/DE/2805/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

In a case where Pantaloons was found to be riding on the goodwill of the Plaintiff in respect of its trade mark ‘American Eagle Outfitters’ and ‘American Eagle’, the Delhi High Court held Pantaloons could continue to sell its line of clothing with the trade mark ‘Urban Eagle’. It noted that the trade mark was sufficiently different to Plaintiff’s and the public interest involved was low; the Court may have taken a different stand if pharmaceutical goods or medicines were involved. Though sufficient distinction was also found between Plaintiff’s device of a swooping eagle and Defendant’s “taking off or a flying eagle”, it was said to not be an original artistic work sufficing for copyright vesting in the Plaintiff.

Relevant : Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited MANU/DE/3131/2010

Tags : PANTALOONS   EAGLE   TRADE MARK   AMERICAN  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved