August 21, 2017     

India: Delhi High Court grants INR 5 lakh damages to Yahoo for Trademark Infringement

 

Source: livelaw.in

 

Recently, the Delhi High Court on July 3, 2017 in the case of Yahoo Inc vs Mr Rinshad Rinu & Ors., directed payment of INR 5 lakh as damages to US based Yahoo Inc, for trademark infringement by a website called ‘YahooKochi’. The Court restrained the website from using its trademark or any other deceptively similar mark.

 

Brief Background

 

Mr. Rinshad Rinu & Others (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Defendants’) operated under the trademark “YahooKochi”, which was unquestionably similar to Yahoo Inc’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’) trademark YAHOO, registered in various classes. Present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no. 1 to 5 from;

  1. offering services and advertising using the Yahoo trademark;

  2. passing off their services as the Plaintiff’s;

  3. operating the website www.yahookochi.com;

  4. diluting and tarnishing the Plaintiff’s trademarks by virtue of their below par services

The Plaintiff also prayed to the Court to pass an order directing Defendant no. 6, GoDaddy.com, the Registrar of the domain name , to suspend the operation of the said domain.

 

The Court vide its order dated October 20, 2015, granted an ex parte ad interim inunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants no.1 to 5 were restrained from using the mark YAHOO in relation to the trademark as well as domain name obtained by them, and Defendant no.6 was directed to suspend the domain name within one week from the date of receipt of order.  

 

Since, the Defendants refrained themselves from appearing, they were proceeded ex parte and the ex parte injunction was confirmed.  

 

Issue  

 

Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s YAHOO trademark?  

 

Contentions: Plaintiff  

 

The Counsel submitted that the registered trademark YAHOO, which was well recognized and reputed, was owned by the Plaintiff. Referring to the website ‘www.yahookochi.com’ and also to the logo used by the Defendant which was strikingly similar to the old logo used by the Plaintiff, it was contended that the Defendants clearly infringed the trademark in question. It was brought to the Court’s attention that the Defendants refused to change their name, even after the Plaintiff’s notice dated May 23, 2015.  

 

Judgment  

 

The Court held that the Plaintiff operated various websites under its YAHOO trademark and that the mark used by Defendants was dishonest. It further stated that the font used by the Defendants to represent YAHOO in their trading name was identical to the unique stylized font which the Plaintiff used to represent its YAHOO trade mark till 2014. It was concluded that the potentiality of the mark was enormous on the internet as the Plaintiff had a wide internet presence. The Court thus established infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark. The Court assessed the cost at INR 4,91,114 (approx. USD 7675) and awarded compensatory damages of INR 2 lacs (approx. USD 3125), and punitive damages worth INR 3 lacs (approx. USD 4688) to the Plaintiff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back To Top

Latest News

India : BBC settles a suit before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre

Recently, in the case of The British Broadcasting Corporation vs Kuldeep Singh Kalra & Ors., The British Broadcasting Corporation prayed for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Kuldeep Singh Kalra from using any mark which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the mark ‘BBC’. However, during the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a settlement before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, because of which Honorable Justice Mukta Gupta of the Delhi High Court decreed the suit as per the terms and conditions of the settlement

Read More..

 

Pakistan: Competition Commission grants damages worth 10 Million Rupees against Proctor & Gamble for engaging in Deceptive Marketing Practices

In a recent order delivered by the Competition Commission of Pakistan, pursuant to a complaint filed by M/s Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan Limited against M/s Proctor & Gamble Pakistan Private Limited for violation of Section 10 (‘deceptive marketing practices’) of the Competition Act, 2010 (herein after referred as Act), the Commission imposed a penalty in the amount of PKR 10 Million!!

Read More..

 

India: Jurisdiction not considered by Delhi High Court while Granting Injunction?

On July 10, 2017, in the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v M/S Urban Masala LLP, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan of the High Court of Delhi passed an interim injunction in favour of Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. restraining M/s. Urban Masala LLP from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising, and/or offering its services or permitting third parties to manufacture, market, advertise or use the trade mark SOCIAL, SOCIIAL.

Read More..

 

Old News

 
  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |