 Apple  | The Last Word

Defendant has been in business since 2015 under a different name. The adoption of the impugned trademark by Defendant is dishonest. Defendant has merely added a suffix ‘PLANT’ as well as a prefix ‘NU’. ‘NUAPPLEPLANT’ is deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s mark ‘APPLESTREE’ when compared and seen visually. ‘PLANT’ and ‘TREE’, in my view, are a classic example of synonymy where reading one would bring to the mind of a purchaser the other. This confusion will be enhanced for identical products/purchasers/trade channels.  

Plaintiff is the prior user of the trademark ‘APPLESTREE’. Plaintiff has prima facie established her claim of passing off. If similarities of trade dress are substantial, it comes within the mischief of passing off. Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction.

Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora, [CS(COMM) 395/2022] decided on 28.09.2022.

Source link

Comments are closed.