Mere Geographical Presence Of Website And Customers’ Ability To Access It Sufficient For Granting Injunction In Trademark Infringement Cases: Delhi HC
Case: Tata Sons Private Limited V. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors
Coram: Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case No.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2022
Court Observation: “Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, the fact that they are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterise it as targeting. Targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a particular set of customers,”
“In fact, the word “TATA” is used as it is by respondent No.1 without any attempt to disguise the same by adding a prefix or suffix, to claim distinctiveness. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that there is a fifty- hit-a-day traffic on the respondents’ website, which he found to be inadequate for assuming jurisdiction,”
“Learned Single Judge, self-doubting his own extraterritorial jurisdiction, has dismissed the interim injunction application on the said sole ground. In effect, the appellant’s application remained unanswered on the aspect of need for interim protection sought by it, against infringement of its right, pending a final decision in the suit. We are of the view that, considerations, while deciding an application for grant of ad-interim injunction could be less stringent than the one for final relief in a suit. Interim decision is required to be made based on probable rather than a definitive view,”
“The way trademark “TATA” has been lifted and adopted as it is, without even an attempt to disguise it with a prefix or a suffix to claim distinctiveness, appears to be unscrupulous. It cannot further be ruled out that it could be an attempt by respondent No.1 to deceive public by selling inferior and dubious products in the name of TATAs,”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Injunction In Trademark Infringement
