Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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