IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Heinz Italia & Anr. v. Dabur India Ltd.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Passing off; interim injunction
Brief facts
The appellants, owners of the GLUCON-D glucose-powder brand, sought an ad-interim injunction against the respondent's GLUCOSE-D product and packaging. The trial court refused, finding the packaging dissimilar, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal on 27 October 2005.
Issues before the Court
Whether the appellants were entitled to an ad-interim injunction against GLUCOSE-D.
Court's findings
The Court held that the appellants' prior user of the mark was a fact needing no evidence in the circumstances, and that the courts below erred in refusing interim protection.
Decision
Orders of the trial court (11 December 2003) and the High Court (27 October 2005) set aside; ad-interim injunction granted in terms of prayer (ii); observations confined to the interim stage.
Key legal principle / ratio
Where a prior user's mark and get-up are closely imitated by a later entrant in the same market, the prior user is entitled to interim protection against passing off.
Important paragraph references
Paras 12-14: prior user and operative order.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Ad-interim Injunction Deceptive Similarity Passing Off Prior User Trade Dress
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order