Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    kaka
    Plaintiff No. 2 owns the trademark "UltraTech". The Plaintiffs allege that in 2013, they learned the Defendant was using the marks "Dalmia ULTRA" and "DALMIA ULTRA" containing the word "ULTRA", which is identical or deceptively similar to their "UltraTech" trademark. The Defendant argues that the inclusion of "Dalmia" is sufficient to indicate the different origin of their goods, and they only use "Dalmia Ultra" to identify a particular grade of their cement. The court must determine whether the Defendant's use of the word "ultra" infringes on the Plaintiff's registered trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    kaka
    35 views2 pages
    Plaintiff No. 2 owns the trademark "UltraTech". The Plaintiffs allege that in 2013, they learned the Defendant was using the marks "Dalmia ULTRA" and "DALMIA ULTRA" containing the word "ULTRA", which is identical or deceptively similar to their "UltraTech" trademark. The Defendant argues that the inclusion of "Dalmia" is sufficient to indicate the different origin of their goods, and they only use "Dalmia Ultra" to identify a particular grade of their cement. The court must determine whether the Defendant's use of the word "ultra" infringes on the Plaintiff's registered trademark.

    Original Title

    Summary.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Plaintiff No. 2 owns the trademark "UltraTech". The Plaintiffs allege that in 2013, they learned the Defendant was using the marks "Dalmia ULTRA" and "DALMIA ULTRA" containing the word "ULTRA", which is identical or deceptively similar to their "UltraTech" trademark. The Defendant argues that the inclusion of "Dalmia" is sufficient to indicate the different origin of their goods, and they only use "Dalmia Ultra" to identify a particular grade of their cement. The court must determine whether the Defendant's use of the word "ultra" infringes on the Plaintiff's registered trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    kaka
    Plaintiff No. 2 owns the trademark "UltraTech". The Plaintiffs allege that in 2013, they learned the Defendant was using the marks "Dalmia ULTRA" and "DALMIA ULTRA" containing the word "ULTRA", which is identical or deceptively similar to their "UltraTech" trademark. The Defendant argues that the inclusion of "Dalmia" is sufficient to indicate the different origin of their goods, and they only use "Dalmia Ultra" to identify a particular grade of their cement. The court must determine whether the Defendant's use of the word "ultra" infringes on the Plaintiff's registered trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Summary

     Plaintiff No. 2 is the present proprietor of all 'UltraTech' trade marks.

     4. The grievance of the Plaintiffs is that in the month of September 2013, they learnt of the
    Defendant's use of marks called 'Dalmia ULTRA', 'DALMIA ULTRA', etc. containing as their
    essential feature the word 'ULTRA'; and that these marks are identical with and/or
    deceptively similar to the 'UltraTech' trade marks of the Plaintiffs.

     (f) The existence of the word 'Dalmia' as a part of the Defendant's mark is sufficient to put
    the traders and purchasing public to notice of the distinctive origin of the Defendant's goods.

     The Plaintiffs' application and the Registry's acceptance of that application were on an
    express footing that the words 'UltraTech Cement' were distinctive only in the combination in
    which they were being used.

     The Defendant's avowed case is that their cement is of a particular grade, suggestive of


    more strength and rigidity, i.e 'HACL' - Higher Alite Lower Celite - and only for this particular
    grade of cement, it uses the mark 'Dalmia Ultra'.

     14. Dr. Tulzapurkar laid great stress on the submission that The word 'ultra' forms a
    prominent and essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks and that even if that
    feature is used by another trader, without using the whole of the registered trade marks,
    such user amounts to an infringement and that to the extent the prominent and essential
    feature in the present case, namely, the word 'ultra' is used by the Defendant as a prominent
    part of its trade mark, there is an infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trade mark.

     It is not the Defendant's case that the word 'Ultra' in its trade marks is distinctive, but that the
    words 'Dalmia Ultra' are distinctive of the

     Automatic Electric (supra) and Ultra Tech Cement Limited v. Alaknanda Cement (supra) are
    of no avail to the Plaintiffs.

     The Court held the word 'Karsote', which prefaced the words 'Vapour Rub', to be quite
    insufficient in itself to dissolve the impression that was bound to arise from associating the
    appellants' goods with a word so distinctive as 'Vapour Rub'.

     The Court came to the conclusion that the defendants' use of the word 'June' as a mark in
    question on the goods so nearly resembled the plaintiff's mark as to be likely to deceive or
    cause confusion in the minds of purchasers with a normally imperfect recollection of the
    picture representing or containing the registered mark.

     The Court held that the injunction against the infringement of the trade mark was rightly
    granted.

     The Court granted injunction against the defendant and held that the essential part of the
    registered mark did not consist merely of a cat's head but included headlamp treatment of
    the eyes and this had been the monopoly of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs had
    established infringement of their registered trade mark and were entitled to relief against
    such infringement.

     The Court did not permit registration of a rival mark using a representation of a bird of prey
    which the proprietors had chosen to call during the relevant period 'Eagle Brand'.

     What the Court noted was that it was important to find out what was the distinguishing or
    essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what was the main idea underlying
    it and if it would find that the trade mark whose registration was sought contained the same
    distinguishing or essential feature or conveyed the same idea, it should rather refuse
    registration.

     The word 'ultra' is neither a distinguishing nor a special feature of the mark, the copying of
    which may amount to an infringement on the part of the Defendant.

     21. The Plaintiff's Notices of Motion are dismissed.

    You might also like