Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd v. Dhiren Krishna Paul on 4 January 2012
FACTS
- Plaintiff has a registered trademark by the name of ‘Health and Glow since 1999, selling beauty and cosmetic products.
- The defendants started conducting business under the name ‘Health and Glow Clinic’. The plaintiffs filed suit for infringement of trademark asking for injunctive reliefs under S29(4).
ISSUE
Was there likelihood of confusion and infringement?
HELD
- The court found that the defendants were taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff’s TM. They had no explanation for using the same words Health and Glow and were found to have no due cause.
- 29(4)(b) mentions that the goods and services do not necessarily have to be similar for infringement to occur. So, the defense provided by the defendant that they were not selling the same products was nil.
- Hence all the requirements of S.29 (4) were fulfilled, and the court held the case in favour of the plaintiff, barring the defendants from using the name ‘Health and Glow’.
Video Summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgJRQxPQ5-E&list=PL-1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=2