Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Homemaker’s Services Cannot Be Ignored in Compensation Due to Age  ||  Kerala High Court Directs Photos and Videos of Illegal Vehicle Modifications in Accident Reports  ||  Madras HC: Property Acquired by Catholic Priests Belongs to the Religious Society  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Marital Disability Cannot Be Used to Avoid Maintenance to Wife and Child  ||  Allahabad HC: Religious Freedom Does Not Confer a Right to a Specific Plot for Cemetery  ||  Allahabad HC: Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone Cannot Prove Wilful Neglect under SC/ST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Teachers Cannot Face Criminal Action for Trivial Classroom Discipline Measures  ||  Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits    

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