Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ


Learned Single Judge has dealt with arguments and contentions raised by SOOTHE and has rightly reached a prima facie conclusion, DABUR’s mark does not infringe SOOTHE’s trademark and DABUR is not passing off its goods as those of SOOTHE. As rightly argued by DABUR and decided by Learned Single Judge, ‘SUPER’ is descriptive and laudatory. Indisputably, ‘SUPER’ is widely used in respect of various products not only of similar nature but also of different class and categories. SOOTHE’s product has a prominent colour scheme in yellow and orange/blue whereas in DABUR’s product, it is primarily green.

Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Soothe Healthcare Private Limited v. Dabur India Ltd., [FAO(OS) (COMM) 100/2022] decided on 11.07.2022.

A suit on basis of cause of action on a fear or apprehension is commonly known as a quia timet suit, defined as action by which a person is entitled to obtain an injunction and restrain a threatened act – which if done, would cause substantial damage. A person who is under a threat of infringement is not remediless and can maintain a suit for injunction. There is no doubt, such apprehension or threat has to be genuine and not a figment of imagination.

Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, M/s. Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. M/s. Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., [FAO(COMM) 78/2022] decided on 12.09.2022.

Also see, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Limited, [FAO(OS)(COMM) 149/2021] decided on 26.09.2022 and Peps Industries Private Limited v. Kurlon Limited, [FAO(OS) (COMM) 94/2020] decided on 07.10.2022.



Source link

Comments are closed.