1. H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB & Anr. v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The plaintiff is the owner of one of the biggest clothing brand in the world “H&M”. The brand registered itself in UK on 1st August 1978 and in India on 21st October,2005. The defendants are owner of “HM Megabrands” that deals with retail sale in garments and apparels. The plaintiffs filed a case against the defendants under Trade Marks Act of 1999 claiming that the usage of same words and similar color pattern would make people believe that it is an offshoot of the clothing brand. The defendants stated that they have adopted the symbol in 2011 and the plaintiff’s brand entered the Indian market in 2015. Therefore, this time frame should also be taken into consideration.
The court stated that the plaintiff can claim injunction against the defendant’s brand. The defendants were ordered to stop using the impugned mark. The court further observed that usage of such mark can give a message of rivalry between the two brands which is definitely not the case. Also the trademark is not publici juris which means public right. Therefore, the plaintiff can claim the right over the name.
Section 31 and 47 of the Trade Marks Act were primarily used in the case.
2. Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India
Crocs Inc. filed a case against Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Action Shoes, Bio world Merchandising India Ltd., Kidz Palace and Aqua Lite India for allegedly copying their unique design. The plaintiff contended that they had registered their design under the designs act of 2000 and the section 2(c) and 11 of the act give them exclusive copyright over this design. The design has become well known and has earned them a lot of income an unknown all over the world. The plaintiff said that they were copying their design and were creating falsified imitation of the already registered designs full stop the defendant's contended that there was no imitation of the design since the section 22(4) of the act states that the registration of a design cannot be considered in case the design is not entitled for being registered and in such case the plaintiff cannot ask for any damage or compensation.
The Court ruled that the case cannot be filled because of the fact that register design cannot constitute a trademark. The court held that the plaintiff has registered the design as a Trademark and no additional features of the design have been registered. For the court also observed that the design act can only provide Limited Monopoly over the set design and once the term for which this design is allowed to be used as a trademark expires it cannot be extended.
