Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

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


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


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved