9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Registered Trademarks 2. Passing Off 3. Contributory Infringement by Search Engine 4. Validity of Registered Trademarks 5. Honest Practices in Trade 6. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm 7. Admissibility of Additional Evidence Summary: Infringement of Registered Trademarks: The appellant, a provider of online matrimonial services, claimed infringement of its registered trademarks (e.g., Bharatmatrimony, Tamilmatrimony) by the respondents using these trademarks as keywords in Google's AdWords program. The court noted that the appellant's trademarks are combinations of descriptive words (e.g., 'Tamil', 'Matrimony') and held that while individual words cannot be monopolized, the combination registered as trademarks must be protected. The court found that respondents' use of these combinations, even with a space in between, could cause confusion and thus constitute infringement u/s 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Passing Off: The appellant argued that the respondents' use of its trademarks in advertisements led to passing off their services as those of the appellant, causing confusion among consumers. The court acknowledged that the use of deceptively similar marks in the ad titles and texts could mislead consumers, thereby supporting the appellant's claim of passing off. Contributory Infringement by Search Engine: The appellant accused Google (respondent 1) of contributory infringement by allowing competitors to use its trademarks as keywords. The court noted that Google's AdWords policy prohibits the use of registered trademarks in ad texts and titles. However, the court found that Google had discriminated against the appellant by not applying this policy uniformly, thus facilitating infringement indirectly. Validity of Registered Trademarks: Respondents challenged the validity of the appellant's trademarks, arguing they were descriptive and lacked distinctiveness. The court held that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of its validity u/s 31 of the Act. The court rejected the respondents' contention, stating that the issue of distinctiveness could be examined during the trial. Honest Practices in Trade: The court examined whether the respondents' use of the appellant's trademarks was in accordance with honest practices u/s 30 of the Act. The court found that the respondents' actions were not honest practices as they caused confusion and misled consumers. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm: The court found that the balance of convenience favored the appellant, given the potential harm to its business and reputation. However, the court noted that irreparable harm could only be fully assessed during the trial. Admissibility of Additional Evidence: The second respondent filed petitions to introduce additional evidence. The court dismissed these petitions, noting the delay and lack of justification for not presenting the documents earlier. However, the court allowed the possibility of introducing these documents during the trial, subject to proof and relevance. Conclusion: The court confirmed the common order passed in the original applications, dismissing the appeals and the petitions for additional evidence. The court directed that the current arrangement, based on Google's undertaking to protect the appellant's trademarks, should continue until the disposal of the suit. The court requested the trial to be expedited and completed preferably by the end of 2013.
|
