in Larsen & Toubro Equal action Radheshyam Singh Wait for the case, The New Delhi District Court in India barred the defendant from using a mark similar to the plaintiff's trademark, Because the defendant's deceptive conduct constitutes trademark infringement. First plaintiff Larsen & Toubro It's a technology research company, engineering, International companies in manufacturing and construction.

The company received 1938 It has been in use since 2000 Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT and LK mark. Larsen & Toubro, LT and L&T Obtained trademark registration in India. Second plaintiff General Industrial Controls is (i) GIC/GIC trademark (See the picture below) In control 9 class (Computer and technology equipment) Registered owner of.

The artistic presentation of the trademark is the font, A unique combination of colors and layouts. The defendant engaged in various analog time switches, Sales of electrical and electronic products and other related products, manufacture, marketing, transport, Supply and business solicitation, etc.

plaintiff 2017 years 1 Learned the infringement facts in September, They found that the infringing products were being sold in the local market in India. The defendant used on its products Larsen & Toubro, Larsen, Toubro, L&T, LT, LK and (i) GIC/GIC trademark, Sign in sight, Phonologically and structurally similar. The defendant even copied the original work, Thus infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Plaintiff claims, The defendant is not the owner of the trademark in question, They used the trademark without the plaintiff's prior consent.

They are not entitled to use the registered trademark in any way. The defendant attempted to counterfeit the plaintiff's products, Create confusion among consumers. The defendant adopted and used the trademark in bad faith and with fraudulent intent, Abusing the goodwill and reputation built up by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs said the infringement caused them great losses. To prove a point, The plaintiff filed several documents, The plaintiff's trademark graphic, The defendant's counterfeit packaging/trademark, The plaintiff's trademark registration certificate, etc. Failure of defendant to appear.

The court stated that, Because the plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark involved, The mark used by the defendant is the same as that of the plaintiff, Therefore the defendants constitute infringement and counterfeiting. The report of the court-appointed local commissioner also confirmed the plaintiff's claim——The defendant is liable for trademark infringement. Defendants and individuals engaged in illegal activities are permanently banned from using them Larsen & Toubro, L & T, LT, LK and (i) GIC/GIC Trademarks and any variations of those trademarks. The defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff 10 Lakh rupees. Due to the defendant's failure to appear, The court was unable to collect actual damages against the plaintiff.

Preliminary identification, This case is an infringement of rights. The defendant is not the registered owner of the trademark, Defendants use illegal copies of Plaintiff's trademarks to sell similar goods. The defendant's absence is further proof of his guilt. Brands should be on the lookout for such infringers trying to get away with it.

(Compiled from www. lexorbis. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.