9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he part of the defendant is also likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of unwary class of customers. The business of the Plaintiffs is likely to be diverted to the defendant on account of features of the domain which contain the mark of the Plaintiff. The plaintiffs mark WORLD BOOK in the present case is highly distinctive; it has acquired residual goodwill and reputation. It is a registered trademark. Hence, mere defences raised by the defendant are moonshine and flimsy which are against the law. In view of the facts, circumstances and the evidence filed on record, the plaintiffs establish a prima facie case for the confirmation of the ex-parte order of interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, if the interim order is not continued, the plaintiffs would suffer loss and irreparable injury. On the other hand, the defendant is also under injunction for the last more than one year and four months. Their adoption of the name is not honest. The defendant s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is dismissed. - I.A. No.8971/2013, I.A. No.11342/2013 and I.A. No.12459/2013 in CS(OS) No.1043/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well known in the business ofpublishing encyclopaedias and other educational reference materials since its adoption in the year 1917. Plaintiffs WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA is considered as number one selling print encyclopaedia in the world. 4.1. In addition to its use as a trademark, the mark WORLD BOOK forms part of the corporate identity and trading style of the plaintiff No.1 as also of its subsidiaries/affiliate companies throughout the world and their encyclopaedias and other reference materials under the trademark/trade name WORLD BOOK are available in print, software versions as also online and are accessible at worldbookonline.com. 4.2. Plaintiffs have obtained registrations of trademark WORLD BOOK in a number of countries worldwide, covering twenty seven countries. In India, the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademark WORLD BOOK in respect of a wide variety of goods/services, as detailed in para 5 of the plaint that are valid and subsisting as on date. On the basis of the said registrations, the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use of the aforesaid trademarks in India. The products and services of the plaintiffs under the trademark/trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same under a mistaken belief and impression that they are buying the merchandise of the plaintiffs and/or their licensees and they have some association of any kind with the plaintiffs which in fact is untrue. 6. The case of the defendant in the written statement is that the words World Book are commonly used words found in the English dictionary and no one can have exclusive right to use these words which are not coined. The said words are within the public domain cannot be claimed as exclusive proprietorship. The defendant s logo has no resemblance to that of plaintiffs trademark. The defendant prints and publishes books unlike that of plaintiffs. The plaintiff has no business in India. The documents filed by plaintiffs do not show any advertisement in India. The plaintiffs are unknown in India, the website owned by the plaintiffs i.e. www.worldbookindia.com does not mention about the books. 6.1. The defendant is involved in publication of novels and has created goodwill of their own in the market. The defendant s website www.worldbookcompany.in also features the other websites wbcbooks.com, wbcmart.com and ebukk.com in its webpage clearly indicating WBC as its brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im order passed by the Court is liable to be vacated, as no case is made out by the plaintiffs against the defendant who has already obtained the registration of its corporate name under the Companies Act. 9. In case submissions of both parties are examined carefully, the following are the main issues which are to be decided at this interim stage: (i) Whether the case of infringement is made out by the plaintiffs against the defendant? (ii) Whether the defendant is passing off its business and services as that of the plaintiffs? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are the prior user of the mark/name WORLD BOOK and has it acquired goodwill and reputation in India and abroad? (iv) Whether the mark/name WORLD BOOK is common to trade and publici juris? (v) Whether the use of Domain Name by the defendant is similar? Goodwill and Reputation 10. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that there are innumerable WORLD BOOK in combination used worldwide by different owners and therefore it is impossible for the defendant to say which WORLD BOOK the plaintiffs represent. The words WORLD BOOK are common English words widely used worldwide by different owners and ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the mark which is identical or nearly resembling to that of registered trademark in respect of the same, similar or different goods in terms of provisions of the Act. In that sense, the remedy of infringement is statutorily conferred upon the registered proprietor. On the other hand, passing off action is an action in common law which is essentially the protection of goodwill and reputation which the person has created by virtue of carrying out of business activities under a particular name and style or under a brand name for that matter and the said action is an action in deceit which is to prevent any misrepresentation caused amongst public. The said misrepresentation may be in the form of innocent representation or deliberate representation which is immaterial in the case of passing off. Actual deception is not required for the party who is infringing the legal rights of the rightful person even using the name innocently. In fact, for the purpose of deciding the case of infringement of trade mark, the plaintiff has not to establish at the initial stage that such adoption was in bad faith. Infringement 13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties who have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered. (6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he- (a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof; (b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark; (c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or (d) uses the registered trademark on business papers or in advertising. (7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee. (8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising- (a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods covered by the registered trade mark. The rival marks are to be compared as a whole. Where two rival marks are identical, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove further that the use of defendant's trademark is likely to deceive and cause confusion as the registration shows the title of the registered proprietor and the things speak for themselves. In an infringement action, once a mark is used as indicating commercial origin by the defendant, no amount of added matter intended to show the true origin of the goods can effect the question. If Court finds that the defendant's mark is closely, visually and phonetically similar, even then no further proof is necessary. 16. The following are the judgments which are relevant to be referred for the purpose of infringement of the trade mark: i. In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980 at 989-990 page wherein it was held that: The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered proprietor of a registered trade mark for the vindication of the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear carrying that label is made by the AVI Footwear Industries, then the mark they would have adopted would have been AVI, but that they have not done. They have tried to bring their mark/ label as close as possible phonetically to the registered mark AVIS. 17. In my view, the statutory monopoly which has been conferred upon the plaintiffs in connection with use of the mark AVIS for any other consideration in relation to grant or non-grant of an injunction, especially when the matter is at an interlocutory state, and is yet to be tried, and it cannot be foreseen as to whether the defendants who seek rectification of the plaintiffs mark, on account of nonuser would be able to prove their case. The statutory registration establishes prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. 18. In this view of the matter, I think that the balance of convenience would be in fav0uor of the plaintiffs, to ensure that by concurrent user, during the period of the trial, no other rights come into existence. In my view, it is very convenient, if the defendants are so minded, to adopt any other label that establishes a connection in the course of trade with respect to the footwear manufactured by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence materials online in India. Some of these websites are:- http://www.indigoedu.com/, http://www.schandgroup.com/WorldBookEnCyclopedia.asp, http://www.theocean.in/worldbook.php?pg=wbencs2012wbook, http://bazar.sulekha.com/the-world-book-encyclopedia-2013-deluxe-indian-edition-rs-1994-off-buy-it-for-rs-1-8499, http://mumbai.quikr.com/WORLD-BOOK-ENCYCLOPEDIA-FOR-SALE-W0QQAdIdZ108847255, http://www.dealdunia.in/topic/6370-the-world-book-encyclopedia-2013-deluxe-indian-edition-in-rs-1-only/, http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Book-Encyclopedia-editors/dp/0716601036, http : //www.ebay.in/itm/World-Book-Encyclopedia-individual-volumes-/370289446032 Besides these 3rd party websites selling the products of the plaintiffs online, the products of the plaintiffs are also available on online giants such as Flipkart as well as Amazon US including Amazon India. The abovementioned facts have not been disputed by the defendant at the time of hearing of the applications. 20. There is a material placed on record to show that the products and services under the Trade Mark WORLD BOOK have been commercially available in India from the year 1993. Plaintiffs have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndant is in similar type of business of publishing books. The defendant who is in the publishing business cannot say that they were not aware about the existence of the plaintiffs products and services under the Trade Mark WORLD BOOK in today s age of internet. Under Section 29(5) of the Act, in case the registered trademark is used by a party, who is not the registered proprietor, as a dominant and essential feature of the corporate name or trading style, it amounts to infringement. Passing Off 23. The fundamental difference that passing off is an action which essentially protects goodwill and not the unregistered trademark has been explained in the case of Star Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Yap Kwee Kor [1976] Fleet Street Patent Law Reports 256 decided by Privy Council comprising Lord Diplock in his speech wherein it has been observed that passing off is an action which is to preserve the goodwill of a person and not aimed at to protect an unregistered trademark. In the words of Lord Diplock, it has been observed as under:- Whatever doubts there may have previously been as to the legal nature of the rights which were entitled to protection by an action for passing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal in character and the learned author observed thus:- Since an essential ingredient of passing off is damage (or prospective damage) to goodwill, he (the Plaintiff) must show that he had, at the date when the Defendants started up, in this country not merely a reputation but a goodwill capable of being damaged. Goodwill, however, is local; it is situated where the business is. Thus a foreign claimant may have a reputation in this country-from travellers or periodicals of international circulation or, increasingly, from exposure on the Internet-yet still fail in an action for passing off because he has here no business and so no goodwill. Such cases have been not uncommon in recent years, and have caused considerable difficulty. Where there is a substantial reputation here, our courts will often accept minimal evidence that a business exists here, but there has to be some . 26. This concept of goodwill and the insistence of localized business has been traditional concept of passing off which sometimes is called as classic case of passing off. However, this concept of passing off has undergone changes due to advent of technology and modernization. For the said reason the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strict insistence of localized business is not necessary. However, reputation which is sought to be protected has to be substantial one having global character. The observation made by Hon ble Judge is as under:- 13. Reputation is the connection that the public makes between a particular product or service and a particular source which may or may not be known. Some Courts have held that reputation which is built up on the basis of trade within the country is entitled to protection from passing off. Others Court have made some concession to the communication explosion and held that if the plaintiff has a reputation in another country, his right to the mark will be protected if it is coupled with some actual or proposed business activity within the country (See Alain Beniardin et Cie v. Pavilion Properties, (1967) RFC 581; Amway Corporation. v. Eurway Int. Ltd. (1974) RFC 82. Still other Courts have held that with the increase in international commerce, mass media communications and the frequency of the foreign travel, political and geographic boundaries do not stem the exchange of ideas and instant information. Local business is not an essential ingredient of a passing off act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a drug is associated with the Respondents worldwide it would lead to an anomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar drug is allowed to be sold in India. However one note of caution must be expressed. Multinational corporations, who have no intention of coming to India or introducing their product in India should not be allowed to throttle an Indian Company by not permitting it to sell a product in India, if the Indian Company has genuinely adopted the mark and developed the product and is first in the market. Thus the ultimate test should be who is first in the market . It was further observed on the facts of the case as under: (9) In the present case, the marks are the same. They are in respect of pharmaceutical products. The mere fact that the Respondents have not been using the mark in India would be irrelevant if they were first in the world market. The Division bench had relied upon material which prima facie shows that the Respondents product was advertised before the Appellants entered the field. On the basis of that material the Division Bench has concluded that the Respondents were first to adopt the mark. If that be so then no fault can be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. As the international businesses grow and proximity between the markets would increase, over the time this concept will become weaker and on one good day world will be treated as one market. 31. In the case of Mahendra Mahendra Paper Mills Limited v. Mahindra Mahindra Limited, (2002) 2 SCC 147, the case before the Supreme Court pertained to the grant of an injunction against the Defendant using, in any manner, as a part of its corporate name or trading style the words Mahindra Mahindra or any word(s) deceptively similar to Mahindra or and/or Mahindra Mahindra so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the business and/or services of the Defendant as those of the Plaintiffs or as emanating from or affiliated or in some way connected with Plaintiffs. The Defendant contended that its products were in no way similar to that of the Plaintiffs and that the business carried on by it did not overlap with the business of any of the companies enlisted by the Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that by using the Plaintiffs trademark as a part of its corporate name, the Defendant had committed the fraud of passing off its business and/or services as that of the Plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r such a name, mark, description, or otherwise in such a manner as to mislead the public into believing that the merchandise or business is that of another person is a wrong actionable at the suit of that other person. This form of injury is commonly, though awkwardly, termed that of passing-off one's goods or business as the goods or business of another and is the most important example of the wrong of injurious falsehood. The gist of the conception of passing-off is that the goods are in effect telling a falsehood about themselves, are saying something about themselves which is calculated to mislead. The law on this matter is designed to protect traders against that form of unfair competition which consists in acquiring for oneself, by means of false or misleading devices, the benefit of the reputation already achieved by rival traders. 35. In Ellora Industries Vs. Banarasi Dass Goela, AIR 1980 DEL 254, this Court held that the asset to be protected is the reputation, the plaintiff s business has in the relevant market which is manifested in various indicia which lead the customer to associate the business with the Plaintiff such as the name of the business, whether real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sual and unwary customer. In the same judgment in para 16, the Court held that the central question in each case is whether the name or description given by the defendant to his goods is such so as to create a likelihood that a substantial section of the purchasing public will be misled into believing that his goods are the goods of the Plaintiff s. The Court further held that it must be remembered that we are concerned with the case where both firms are engaged in a common field of activity. The question arises whether the Defendants are misleading the public into buying their goods in the belief that they emanated from the Plaintiffs. The Court further said that most defendants in these cases start their business fully aware of the fame of the Plaintiffs name and mark. They want to cash in on the popularity of the Plaintiffs product. Whether the goods are inferior or superior, every infringement is, in the way tribute to the excellence of the Plaintiffs wares. It is a major of the popularity of Plaintiffs goods. The Court, also emphasized in para 54 that the fundamental question is whether there is a likelihood of deception of the public by the use of a particular name. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een's Bench Division against George Banham and George Banham Co. Ltd., for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing certain trade marks and from continuing to use the word 'Camel in such a manner as to pass off their goods as and for the plaintiff's goods. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had, during the course of trade, sold very large quantities of beltings as 'camel beltings' and that the word 'Camel' appeared upon, or was attached to their beltings as 'camel beltings'. In England and abroad the word 'camel', or the figure of a camel, was universally understood in all the places where their beltings was sold, to indicate goods to be of plaintiffs manufacture. It was also asserted that beltings was sold as 'camel' and 'camel hair beltings also. The action was commenced because the Defendants' company and the Defendant Banham had recently sold in England and advertised for sale in conjunction with the word Camel large quantities of beltings, which belting was not made by the plaintiffs and thus, the persons who desire for purchasing beltings of the Plaintiff would be deceived by the Defendants' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinary language, us evidenced by their absence in authoritative and standard language dictionaries, were the exclusive property of the person who first coined , or created them and adopted them for use, and used it in connection with any article the only reason why a hitherto meaningless word would be used by another in connection with his activities would be to deceive the public, that the letters article, thing or goods or the articles, thing or goods of the former. He also observed that he was unable to see why a man should be allowed in this way, more than in any other, to deceive purchasers into the belief that they are getting what they are not, and thus to filch the business of a rival . 39. The marks which are of common terms, the claim for distinctiveness or secondary meaning is weak. Manish Vij v. Indra Chugh 2002 (24) PTC 561 (Del) was a case where kabadibazaar was held not to be a newly coined but a descriptive word as since it required no imagination to connect it with second hand goods. Similarly in Vijay Kumar Ahuja v. Lalita Ahuja 2002 (24) PTC 141 (Del) the Court held that neither party can claim any right to exclusive use of common language words and names ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Advocate Rohit Kochhar who is also the Chairman of the Law Firm representing this Instant suit. As per Provisions relating to the Bar Council Rules an Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which he is himself pecuniary interested and also should not accept Brief from a company of which he is a director. The Legal Notice served upon the defendant is in itself a gross professional misconduct as per the provisions of the code of ethics. The Other director Advocate Manishi Pathak whose name appears in the Registration of the plaintiff-Company is also one of the Senior Partners of the Law Firm representing this present Suit. The conduct of the Advocates clearly proves Misuse of the Privilege of being an Advocate. The plaintiffs have instituted a false and frivolous suit against the defendant thereby causing loss of reputation, loss of goodwill, financial loss and harassment. 42. On the other hand, it is argued by the plaintiffs counsel that the Defendant has no justification for adopting the impugned mark/name. It is wrong and unethical on the part of the Defendant, who has dishonestly adopted the impugned mark/name which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in different countries in the World. There is a WORLD BOOK Encyclopedia special volume on India Edition, 1999, excerpts from India Today Edition dated 21st June, 1999 and other documents pertaining to the period 2006-2007. The plaintiffs have also filed on record number of news articles published in various Newspapers and Magazines and also the website shots giving reference to and/or selling the plaintiff s WORLD BOOK publications. That apart the Plaintiffs have also produced on record copies of certificates of registrations of the mark WORLD BOOK in different countries in the world. 45. The documentary evidence produced on record clearly demonstrate prima facie that the Plaintiffs are not only prior in adoption and use of the mark WORLD BOOK in respect of and in relation to publication business but the said mark has widely been used and is highly reputed mark in the field of publication. The next argument made by the Defendant that this company was incorporated prior in point of time in India as compared to the incorporation of plaintiff No.2 is devoid of any merits. The rights in the trade mark / trade name WORLD BOOK are claimed by plaintiff No.1, which is in the busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a similar drug is allowed to be sold in India. However, one note of caution must be expressed. Multinational corporations, who have no intention of coming to India or introducing their product in India should not be allowed to throttle an Indian Company by not permitting it to sell a product in India, if the Indian Company has genuinely adopted the mark and developed the product and is first in the market. Thus, the ultimate test should be who is first in the market. Disclaimer 48. Word Book Disclaimer in the Plaintiffs trade mark WORLD BOOK : It is a well settled law that the Trade Mark should be considered as a whole and the absence of the disclaimer after the amendment of the Trade Mark Act meant that the Registration give no separate rights in matter which only formed part of the Trade Mark. The scope and effect of disclaimer has been explained by the apex court in the case of Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd, AIR 1955 SC 558 The real purpose of requiring a disclaimer is to define the rights of the proprietor under the registration so as to minimise, even if it cannot wholly eliminate, the possibility of extravagant and unauthorised c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n combination such as worldbookmart.com, worldbooks.com, worldbookday.com, worldbooknight.com, worldofbooks.com, bookworld.com, etc. This reflects that these words are open to the world for use and cannot be monopolized by anyone being dictionary words and directly referring to the product for use. So far as the issue of protection of domain names is concerned, the law relating to the passing off is well settled. The principle underlying the action is that no one is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to lead to the belief that he is carrying on the business of another man or to lead to believe that he is carrying on or has any connection with the business carried by another man. It is undisputed fact that a domain name serves the same function as the trade mark and is not a mere address or like finding number on the Internet and, therefore, is entitled to equal protection as a trade mark. A domain name is more than a mere Internet Address for it also identifies the Internet site to those who reach it, much like a person s name identifies a particular person, or as more relevant to trade mark disputes, a company s name identifies a specific company. 50. Domain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nference to be drawn than that the said person wanted to trade in the name of the trade name he has picked up for registration or as a domain name because of its being an established name with widespread reputation and goodwill achieved at huge cost and expenses involved in the advertisement. (iii) In Rediff Communication Ltd. vs. Cyberbooth, 1999 (3) Arb. LR. 636, the Bombay High Court, while granting an injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark/domain name RADIFF or any other similr name, it was held that when two similar domain names are considered there is every possibility of internet user being confused and deceived in believing that both domain names belong to one common source and connection although the two belong to two different persons. Once the intention to deceive is established, the court should not make further enquiry about the likelihood of confusion. If it is found that a man s object in doing that which he did was to deceive, that he had an intention to deceive the Court, will very much infer that his object has been achieved, if the facts tend to show that, that is the case and to say that his intention to deceive ripening into receipt giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85, it was observed as under: 11. In Marks Spencer Vs. One-in-a-Million; reported in 1998 FSR 265, it was held that any person who deliberately registers a domain name on account of its similarity to the name, brand name or trademark of an unconnected commercial organisation must expect to find himself on the receiving end of an injunction to restrain the threat of passing off, and the injunction will be in terms which will make the name commercially useless to the dealer. It was held in the said decision that the name 'marks and spencer' could not have been chosen for any other reason than that it was associated with the well-known retailing group. The decision further goes on to say that where the value of a name consists solely in its resemblance to the name or trade mark of another enterprise, the Court will normally assume that the public is likely to be deceived, for why else would the defendants choose it? It was also said that someone seeking or coming upon a website called http:// marksandspencer.co.uk would naturally assume that it was that of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is seen that although the word 'services' may not find place in the expression used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach and every domain names available with the letters of these words. These words are open to the world for use and cannot be monopolized by anyone being dictionary words and directly referring to the product for use. The said submissions have no force in view of settled law. The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Kant Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC), in the relevant para 10 held as under:- The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that his goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business. Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services which already belongs to someone else it results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury. In this case, the Apex Court further observed that: Where there is probability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f and Naukri.Com of the defendant, depicting the nature and type of business activity they carry on are identical or confusingly similar trade mark or service marks. It is also a possibility for an internet user while searching for the website of the plaintiff to enter into the website of the defendant through only a small mis-spelling of the domain name and, in fact, such incident has occurred in the case of the plaintiff itself vis-a-vis the defendant in proof of which a documents is also placed on record. Such diversion of traffic with the sole intention of ulterior gain in the similar business activity by a competitor, requires protection. A court discharging equitable justice should come in aid and for protection of the honest user as opposed to a dishonest user acting on bad faith. 30. The website using the domain name, similar to that of the plaintiff, for commercial purposes, would lead to an inference that the domain name was chosen intentionally to attract internet users of the plaintiff. This is also established in view of the minor spelling variant to a well-known mark, without any Explanation and the same definitely creates a prima facie inference of bad faith wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
