P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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

MANU/DE/3713/2018

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 millenniumhotelsandresort.com and website www.millenniumhotelsandresort.com 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

Tags : TRADEMARK   INJUNCTION   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved