SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

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