Recently, the Supreme Court of United States held that marks which are generic when combined with a top-level domain name may qualify as registrable marks provided the consumers do not consider them to be generic. The decision is in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V. By an 8: 1 majority the matter has been decided against USPTO….
Recently, the Supreme Court of United States held that marks which are generic when combined with a top-level domain name may qualify as registrable marks provided the consumers do not consider them to be generic. The decision is in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V.. By an 8: 1 majority the matter has been decided against USPTO….
Tata Sons Limited v. Mr. Manu Kosuri & Ors. 2001 PTC 432 (Del) Brief Facts: • The Plaintiff was the Registered Proprietor of the trademark ‘TATA’ since 1917 and is one of the oldest and largest business conglomerates in India and its reputation spilled globally. • The Defendants’ misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trademark TATA as part…
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. Manu Kosuri & Anr. 2001 (58) DRJ 241 Brief Facts: • Plaintiff company was established in the year 1984 for research and development activity in the field of medicine • Plaintiff company had registered a domain name ‘drreddys.com’. • In the month of January, 1999, Plaintiff came to know that…
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr. 1999 PTC (19) 201 (Delhi) Brief Facts: • Plaintiff was the owner of the trademark ‘Yahoo!’ and domain name ‘Yahoo.Com’. • The Defendants adopted the name ‘Yahooindia’ for similar services which as per the Plaintiff was identical to or deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademark ‘Yahoo!’. • Plaintiff instituted…
Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth & Anr. AIR 2000 Bombay 27 Brief Facts: Plaintiff, Rediff Communication Limited was an on line media company carrying on the business of communication and providing services through the internet since 6th January 1997. On 8th February 1997, Plaintiff registered the domain name ‘REDIFF.COM’, with Network Solutions, Inc. In March,…
Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shailesh Gupta and Anr. 98 (2002) DLT 499 Brief Facts: Plaintiff adopted the name ‘NAUKRI.COM’ in 1997 and since then the Plaintiff was carrying on the business under the aforesaid domain name. In 1999, Defendant registered two domain names ‘JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM’ & ‘NAUKARI.COM’ and was in the identical…
Stephen Koenig vs. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) & Anr. AND Jagdish Purohit vs. Stephen Koenig 2012(49)PTC304(Del), 186(2012)DLT43 FACTS: The case is about dispute regarding the domain name ‘internet.in‘. The present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) were directed against an Award passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed by the National Internet Exchange…
D’zine Garage Pvt. Ltd. vs. D’zine Cafe FZE AND D’zine Cafe FZE vs. D’zine Garage Pvt. Ltd. Decided On: 09.10.2007 Key Words: service mark, domain name, phonetically similar, prior user, online communication, website, class 35, publici juris, generic word, distinctiveness FACTS: The respondent/plaintiff (P) was carrying on the business of a leading interactive agency, specializing in online communication for a…
Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.; AIR 2004 SC 3540 FACTS The Respondent (Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.) had registered domain names www.siffynet.com and www.siffynet.net which were similar to the Plaintiff’s domain name www.sifynet.com. Appellant (Satyam Infoway Ltd.) had considerable reputation in the market and had registered the name ‘Sifynet’ and various other…