| |

Libertel Groep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau

Libertel Groep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau Case No. C-104/01, European Court of Justice, 6th May, 2003 The Applicant had applied for registration of the Colour Orange for telecommunications goods and services before Benelux Trade Marks Office (BTMO). The application form contained an orange rectangle and in the space for describing the trade mark, the word ‘orange’…

| |

In Re General Electric Broadcasting Company, Inc.

In Re General Electric Broadcasting Company, Inc. 199 U.S.P.Q. 560 (TTAB, 1978) Brief Facts: Applicant filed an application to register a mark consisting of the sound made by a Ship’s Bell Clock as a service mark for Radio Broadcasting Services. The mark was described as “a series of bells tolled during four, hour sequences, beginning…

| |

Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc v OHIM

Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc v OHIM (R708/2006-4) Board of Appeal Date of decision: 27th September, 2007 In 2004, the Applicant applied for registration “The Tarzan Yell”[1] through a sonogram. The sonogram/proposed sound mark is depicted herein below: The examiner did not consider the sonogram as an acceptable ‘graphical representation’ of a sound mark and relying…

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corporation’s Appeal relating to Community trade mark application No. 143891

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corporation’s Appeal relating to Community trade mark application No. 143 891 Case R 781/1999-4  In the said case, the Applicant sought to register the famous MGM Roar of Lion as a trade mark and represented the same through a spectrogram[1] in the application. The issue as to registrability arose as the subject application…

| |

Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist h o d n Memex

Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist h o d n Memex; Case No. C-283/01 European Court of Justice Brief Facts: Registrant (Sheild Mark BV) of the mark had 14 registered trade marks in its favour granted by Benelux[1] Trade Marks Office. The registrations were in Class 9 (computer software (recorded), etc.), 16 (magazines, newspapers, etc.),…

| |

Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt

Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt Case C-273/00, 2003 E.T.M.R. 37 Brief Facts: The Applicant intended to register an olfactory/smell mark, before the German Patent and Trade Marks Office, in Classes 35, 41 and 42 for which the Applicant provided the following description: “Trade mark protection is sought for the olfactory mark deposited with the Deutsches…

Venootschap onder Firma Senta Aromatic Marketing’s Application

Venootschap onder Firma Senta Aromatic marketing’s Application; [1999] E.T.M.R. 429 (Eur. Comm. Trade marks Office, Second Board of Appeal) Brief Facts: The Applicant applied for registration of a smell mark with the description ‘THE SMELL OF FRESH CUT GRASS’ for tennis balls. The Examiner was of the view that the words ‘the smell of fresh…

| |

Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.

Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. 258 (2019) DLT 177 Radico Khaitan Ltd. filed a suit for Infringement of Trade Mark and Passing Off against Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. in respect of the Trade Mark ELECTRA in respect of alcoholic beverages. Radico Khaitan Ltd. manufactured Ready to Drink Vodka Infused alcoholic Beverage under…

| | |

Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Ors.

Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Ors.  2019(77) PTC 411(Del) Plaintiff started using the mark “BOOKMYSHOW” in 2007 as a ticketing venture and had revenues of Rs. 150 Crores per year. Defendant was using “BOOKMYEVENT”. Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for infringement and passing off in respect of its trade mark…

Max Hypermarket India Pvt. Ltd. v. Curo India Pvt. Ltd.

Max Hypermarket India Pvt. Ltd. v. Curo India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (77) PTC 427 [Del] Brief Facts: Joint Registrar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi permitted the additional documents of the Plaintiff to be taken on record vide an order dated 8th May, 2018. The counsel for the Defendant being aggrieved by the said order filed…

| |

Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors.  – Supreme Court resettling and affirming the settled principles of Law of Trade Marks

Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors.   2018 (76) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Plaintiff/Respondent had trade marks ‘CHYMORAL’ and ‘CHYMORAL FORTE’, used for a drug administered post-surgically for swellings that may arise and/or wounds that may arise. Plaintiff claimed use of the mark from the year 1988 through its predecessor in interest from…