Delhi HC: Difference in Layout is of No Consequence if Essential Feature of Trademark Infringed  ||  Allahabad HC: Parliament has Responsibility to Restrain Criminals from Entering Into Politics  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Vacate Stay on Direction to Enforce CM's Speech Promising Rent Relief  ||  J&K&L HC: Judges Must Refrain from Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Should be Sensitive When Poor And Deprived Knock at its Doors  ||  CESTAT: Law Does Not Mandate Customs Broker to Physically Verify Address of Client  ||  Orissa HC: Appeal Can’t be Dismissed on Sole Ground of Non-Submission of Certified Order  ||  ITAT: Deposit of Banned Notes Received Out of Cash Sales During Demonetization Period is Valid  ||  ITAT: Arrangement Between Spouse Without Real Money Exchange Not Amount to Unexplained Investment  ||  ITAT: 100% Deduction U/S 80IC of IT Act allowable when Industry undergone Substantial Expansion    

Millennium & Copthorne International Limited Vs. Aryans Plaza Services Private Limited and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (08 Oct 2018)

Defendants cannot gain from a wrong committed by a third party


Intellectual Property Rights

Present is an application for restraining the Defendants from misappropriating Plaintiffs registered and well known Trade mark MILLENNIUM and logo (the "Five Bar M logo") and using identical or deceptively similar Trade mark(s). The Plaintiff had filed a complaint against the domain name of the Defendant with WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for adjudication under the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy and it has also given its finding stating the domain name used by the Defendant is confusingly similar to the Plaintiff registered Trade mark Millennium.

The Defendant is still continuing to operate the impugned "MILLENNIUM Hotel" in Faridabad and are using domain name and website etc. and also it has similar logo and since the Plaintiff has registered Trade mark in its feature. The Defendant be restrained from using the word MILLENNIUM or the logo of the Plaintiff. It is argued that, the Plaintiff is an international brand having acclaimed goodwill throughout the world and the Defendant is using the goodwill of the Plaintiff, hence need to be restrained.

It is settled law that, "a wrong is not righted by the following it musters". In other words, the Defendants cannot gain from a wrong committed by a third party, as per, M/s. Prakash Roadline Ltd. vs. M/s. Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd.

Thus, allegations of use by third parties cannot be a sound defence, in the absence of evidence of actual use by the said third parties. The Defendants themselves having filed an application seeking the registration of a Trade mark containing the mark MILLENNIUM in India and therefore cannot rely on the argument of the mark being publici juris or being used by several third parties. Admittedly, the Defendant has abandoned its claim over the Trade mark ‘Millennium’ and having not challenged the Trade mark of Plaintiff shows the Defendant is not an honest user.

It is well settled principle of law that, in case where all the three sine-quo-non for grant of interim injunction namely prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable loss are made out in favour of the Plaintiff , interim injunction should be granted against the Defendants till the final disposal of suit on merits. Thus, the application is to be allowed in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the application is allowed and till the disposal of the suit on merits Defendants, are restrained from using the Trade mark MILLENNIUM and/or the impugned logo MILLENNIUM or HOTEL or any other mark similar to Plaintiffs registered MILLENNIUM Trade mark or logo.

Relevant : M/s. Prakash Roadline Ltd. vs. M/s. Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd., MANU/DE/0526/1992: DRJ 1992 (22) 489


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2022 - All Rights Reserved