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    

Federal Brands Ltd. v. Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. - (High Court of Bombay) (02 Mar 2016)

Levi Strauss denied use of ‘Live In’ for promotional material


Intellectual Property Rights

The Bombay High Court prohibited Levi Strauss from using the words ‘Live In’ in connection with its clothing line, ‘Levi’s’.

The Plaintiff, owner of the registered trade mark, ‘Live-In’ had complained against Levi Strauss using the deceptively similar phrase ‘Live In’ alongside its own trade mark, ‘Levi’s’. The Court accepted its contentions that the public would associate ‘Live-In’ and ‘Levi’s’ together and confusion would result in both being accepted as brands belonging to Levi Strauss. Counter arguments by on behalf of Strauss that the words were only generally descriptive of clothing, and formed mere sub-text in its branding backfired somewhat. The Court concluded that if the words were of such little importance, Levi Strauss would not be prejudiced if it were not allowed to use the same in hoardings and other advertising campaigns.

Relevant : M/s. Johnson and Johnson and another vs. Christine Hoden India (P.) Ltd. and another MANU/DE/0675/1987 Hem Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Trading vs. ITC Limited MANU/MH/0535/2012 Section 29 Trade Marks Act, 1999


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved