SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

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

MANU/MH/0340/2016

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

Tags : LEVI STRAUSS   LIVE IN   TRADE MARK   DECEPTIVE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved