Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff, Federal Brands Ltd., filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'LIVE IN' in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing. The Plaintiff claimed that since 1992, its sister concern Hybo-Hindustan had conceived and adopted the mark 'LIVE-IN' and used it through the Plaintiff as a permitted user. The mark was registered in class 25 in 2005, and subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had sold goods worth over Rs.1000 crores and spent over Rs.41 crores on advertisement. The Defendant, a well-known jeans manufacturer, had applied for registration of the mark 'LIVE IN' and was about to launch products under that mark. The court found that the marks 'LIVE-IN' and 'LIVE IN' were phonetically and visually similar, and the addition of a space did not distinguish them. The court held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the Plaintiff. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'LIVE IN' or any deceptively similar mark pending the suit.
Headnote
A) Trademark Law - Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court considered whether the mark 'LIVE IN' is deceptively similar to the registered mark 'LIVE-IN' and likely to cause confusion in the trade and public. Held that the marks are phonetically and visually similar, and the addition of a space does not alter the essential feature. (Paras 1-10) B) Trademark Law - Passing Off - Goodwill and Reputation - The Plaintiff claimed extensive use and goodwill in the mark 'LIVE-IN' since 1992. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'LIVE IN' was likely to mislead consumers and cause damage to the Plaintiff's reputation. (Paras 2-8) C) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant had not yet launched its products under the impugned mark, and the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if injunction was not granted. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Defendant's use of the mark 'LIVE IN' in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'LIVE-IN' and constitutes passing off.
Final Decision
The court allowed the notice of motion and granted a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'LIVE IN' or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'LIVE-IN' in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing, pending the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- passing off
- deceptive similarity
- phonetic similarity
- temporary injunction
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
