SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years  ||  P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act  ||  Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement  ||  Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC  ||  Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable  ||  Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs  ||  Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned    

Honeywell International Inc. v. Pravin Thorat and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (24 Aug 2015)

Court grants injunction against use of trademark 'Honeywell' by bakery

MANU/DE/2424/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

The Court, noting that Honeywell, a multi-national with revenues of $39 billion, and employing 13,000 persons in India alone, could suffer aggravated infringement if the Defendants continued to use the name 'Honeywell' for their three bakeries in Pune. It noted the possibility of confusion in consumers who may be falsely induced into believing that the Defendant had a direct nexus or affiliation with Honeywell. The Court held that use of the trademark by the Defendant would lead to a “gradual whittling away of the exclusivity and uniqueness of the goods and services that are associated with the Plaintiff's trademark Honeywell".

Relevant : Time Incorporated Vs. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr., MANU/DE/0104/2005 Microsoft Corporation Vs. Rajendra Pawar & Anr., MANU/DE/9851/2007

Tags : TRADEMARK   HONEYWELL   BAKERY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved