Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Bombay HC on Nicotine Pouch Ban: Duty-Free Shops Must Comply with Domestic Laws  ||  SEBI Settles Hindenburg-linked Disclosure Cases Involving Five Adani Firms for Rs. 1.5 Crore  ||  Kerala High Court: Navy Court-Martial Proceedings Can Be Prosecuted by Investigating Officer  ||  Bombay HC: Arrest is Drastic; ED Cannot Halt Section 50 Questioning and Arrest on Same Material  ||  Supreme Court Proposes Unified Platform for Investment of Funds Deposited by Litigants  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Interfere When Tender Acceptance Violates NIT Conditions  ||  SC: Recovery of Tainted Money Without Proof of Bribe Demand Insufficient for Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Production of Original Deed Not a Ground to Discharge Accused    

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