Supreme Court: Non-Signatory That is Not a Veritable Party Cannot Invoke an Arbitration Clause  ||  SC: Bail Can't be Cancelled For Police Non-Appearance Once Chargesheet is Filed and Trial is Attended  ||  SC: New Arbitration Bill Fails To Provide a Statutory Appeal Against Tribunal Termination Orders  ||  SC: Employees Who Resign or Retire After Five Years of Service Are Entitled to Receive Gratuity  ||  SC: Employees Who Resign or Retire After Five Years of Service Are Entitled to Receive Gratuity  ||  Supreme Court: Higher Courts Should Avoid Unnecessary Remand of Cases to Lower Courts  ||  J&K&L HC: Under SARFAESI Act, Borrower's Right To Redeem a Secured Asset Ends With Auction Notice  ||  Calcutta HC: Income Tax Returns Can Be Used to Assess Victim's Income; ?39 Lakh Compensation Granted  ||  Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved