SC: Bribe Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt without Proof of Demand under PC Act  ||  SC: Cut Power, Water to Bulk Waste Generators Violating Solid Waste Rules  ||  SC: RPF Employee Who Conceals Criminal Case Can be Discharged at Any Stage  ||  SC: Police can Register FIR Despite Magistrate Rejecting S.156(3) CrPC Application  ||  SC: Criminal Acquittal Alone Cannot Prove Absence of Negligence in Accident Claims  ||  SC: Referral Fees Earned By Auto Dealers for Bank, Insurance Promotion Taxable as Service Tax  ||  Supreme Court Revisits the definition of “Industry”: 9-Judge Bench Reformulates the 1978 Triple Test  ||  Delhi HC: Exam Integrity is a Shared Duty of Candidates and Authorities  ||  Delhi High Court: POCSO Allows Child Witness Cross-Examination but Bars Aggressive Questioning  ||  Kerala HC: Christian Women May File Divorce Pleas Where They Reside    

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