Bombay High Court Declines To Restrain Use Of ‘ANNA’ Trademark, Cites Plaintiff’s Stand Of Dissimilarity During Registration Stage
Case: Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond v. Ms. Anna
Coram: Justice Sandeep V Marne
Case No.: Appeal From Order No. 915 of 2023
Court Observation: “I am of the view that the stand taken by a party in proceedings for registration of a Mark cannot be ignored in each and every proceeding filed for infringement or passing off. In the present case, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel would fully apply where Plaintiff has twice made a representation before the Trademark Registry that there is no resemblance between his and the Defendant’s Marks. He took that stand with full knowledge that Defendant was intending to use the Mark ‘ANNA’ for same class of goods and services”.
Previous Posts
Previous Posts
Bombay High Court Declines To Restrain Use Of ‘ANNA’ Trademark, Bombay High Court Declines To Restrain Use Of ‘ANNA’ Trademark, Cites Plaintiff’s Stand Of Dissimilarity During Registration Stage
Related Articles
- Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹100 Crore PMLA Freeze on Coda Payments, Cites Lack of Reasoned Order
- During the framing of charges, the accused has the right to request the production of documents submitted to the investigating officer under Section 91 of the CrPC, even if the accused already possesses those documents: Bombay High Court
- Order 23 CPC | Defendant Can Be Made Plaintiff Upon Partial Withdrawal Of Suit If No Conflict Of Interest With Original Plaintiff: Bombay High Court
