IP Case Law › Trade Marks › The Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999; Copyright Act, 1957 (interim injunction)
Brief facts
Supreme Industries sought an interim injunction against the defendant's use of SUPREMES GOLD. The defendant relied on the Registry's refusal of registration of the plain word mark SUPREME.
Issues before the Court
Whether the refusal of registration of the word SUPREME defeated the plaintiff's claim of infringement.
Court's findings
The refusal of registration of the word mark SUPREME did not assist the defendant, because the plaintiff had secured registration of SUPREME-formative marks in which SUPREME is the essential feature, and no prosecution history estoppel was pleaded. A prima facie case of infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off was made out (paras 36-37).
Decision
Interim application made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c).
Key legal principle / ratio
Refusal of registration of a word on its own does not prevent a proprietor from enforcing registered formative marks of which that word is the essential feature, absent pleaded prosecution history estoppel.
Important paragraph references
Paras 36-37.
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
Formative Marks Interim Injunction Prosecution History Estoppel SUPREME SUPREMES GOLD
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