IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999 (infringement; well-known mark; damages)
Brief facts
Rolex sued the defendants for using ROLEX on artificial jewellery. An interim injunction had earlier been granted, and the suit came up for final decision.
Issues before the Court
Whether use of ROLEX on jewellery infringed the plaintiff's well-known mark and what relief should follow.
Court's findings
The Court decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour, holding the defendants liable for use of the ROLEX mark and awarding damages.
Decision
Suit decreed with permanent injunction, compensatory damages and Rs. 3,00,000 as punitive/exemplary damages, damages for loss of reputation and goodwill, and Rs. 50,000 as costs.
Key legal principle / ratio
Protection of a well-known trade mark extends to dissimilar goods such as jewellery where use is likely to take unfair advantage of or harm its reputation; compensatory and punitive damages may be awarded.
Important paragraph references
Paras 47-48: relief and decree.
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
Dissimilar Goods Infringement Jewellery Passing Off Punitive Damages Well-known Trade Mark
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