- within Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
Trademark infringement is violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner. Infringement may occur when infringer uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration. Raising such a grievance is the case of Alberto Co v. R.K. Vijay & Ors 166(2010)DLT391, wherein the issue of permanent injunction came up. Alberto Co in this pursuance, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the alleged infringer R.V. Vijay and his co-parties from using the trademark "VOV", which Alberto owns.
Alberto contended that they had been using the trademark "VO5" alongwith the term "ALBERTO" since 1955 and had built a valuable goodwill and reputation in the course of trade. The mark "Alberto VO5" was registered since May 1960. Alberto Co also stated that they had filed applications for registration of "VO5 no-go" and the word mark "VO5" which were still pending. It showed copies of its annual report, balance sheets, statement of cash flows in the last few years to contend that they had built an enviable reputation and goodwill for their products. They also stated that they had been regularly and continuously advertising their products throughout the world including India. In India according to Alberto Co. goods are sold through an exclusive licensee, namely M/S Alberto-Culver International . They also stated that one of the defendants, VOV Cosmetics Co. Ltd had adopted the trademark VOV, for the sale of its goods which resulted in confusion amongst customers.
The third defendant VOV Cosmetics Co. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing and trading in goods similar to that of Alberto, also filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that Alberto Co. had not disclosed that VOV is involved in any trading activity. Moreover the court rejected the suit against the first two defndants, in regard to which another application was filed against the first two defandants but was subsequently withdrawn..
The Court opined that the premise on which the suit was founded in Delhi was the residence of the first two defendants, who were said to be marketing VOVC's manufactured products. The Court upon consideration of the submissions of the parties held that the first two defendants were selling VOVC'S goods in India and even though VOVC does not has an office in India it has still infringed Alberto Co.'s trademark.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.