Scent-Sational Drama: Lotus V. ‘Splash’ Trademark Wars
Facts
The plaintiff owns “Lotus”-related trademarks in cosmetic and medicinal classes (Classes 3 and 5). The defendant uses “Lotus Splash” for face cleansers in the same classes, prompting the plaintiff’s Section 29 infringement claim. The defendant argues that “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, invoking Section 30(2)(a) protection.
Issues
- Whether the defendant’s use of “Lotus Splash” infringes upon the plaintiff’s registered trademarks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Whether the defendant can successfully claim the defence under Section 30(2)(a) based on the indication of product characteristics?
Plaintiff's Contention
Plaintiff contends “Lotus Splash” use by the defendant causes consumer confusion, emphasizing exclusive rights to “Lotus” marks and potential association due to the prominent use of “Lotus.
Defendant Contention
The defendant contends that their use of “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, particularly the inclusion of lotus flower extract. The defendant relies on Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, asserting that their use does not constitute infringement as it serves to convey information about the product. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s emphasis on confusion is unwarranted as their use is transparent about the key ingredient in their face wash.
Analysis
Section 29(2)(b) analysed for mark, goods, and confusion. Evaluation of consumer perception and potential association between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s products. Section 30(2)(a) defence examined “Lotus Splash” indicating lotus extract, dismissing pure descriptiveness, emphasizing indicative nature of use.
Judgement
Prima facie, there is likely infringement due to the similarity of marks and goods, but the defendant may be protected under Section 30(2)(a) for indicating product characteristics. Passing-off claim is rejected based on dissimilarities and price differences. Overall, the defendant may be entitled to Section 30(2)(a) protection, and no injunction is warranted at this stage.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Scent-Sational Drama: Lotus V. ‘Splash’ Trademark Wars
Facts
The plaintiff owns “Lotus”-related trademarks in cosmetic and medicinal classes (Classes 3 and 5). The defendant uses “Lotus Splash” for face cleansers in the same classes, prompting the plaintiff’s Section 29 infringement claim. The defendant argues that “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, invoking Section 30(2)(a) protection.
Issues
- Whether the defendant’s use of “Lotus Splash” infringes upon the plaintiff’s registered trademarks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Whether the defendant can successfully claim the defence under Section 30(2)(a) based on the indication of product characteristics?
Plaintiff's Contention
Plaintiff contends “Lotus Splash” use by the defendant causes consumer confusion, emphasizing exclusive rights to “Lotus” marks and potential association due to the prominent use of “Lotus.
Defendant Contention
The defendant contends that their use of “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, particularly the inclusion of lotus flower extract. The defendant relies on Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, asserting that their use does not constitute infringement as it serves to convey information about the product. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s emphasis on confusion is unwarranted as their use is transparent about the key ingredient in their face wash.
Analysis
Section 29(2)(b) analysed for mark, goods, and confusion. Evaluation of consumer perception and potential association between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s products. Section 30(2)(a) defence examined “Lotus Splash” indicating lotus extract, dismissing pure descriptiveness, emphasizing indicative nature of use.
Judgement
Prima facie, there is likely infringement due to the similarity of marks and goods, but the defendant may be protected under Section 30(2)(a) for indicating product characteristics. Passing-off claim is rejected based on dissimilarities and price differences. Overall, the defendant may be entitled to Section 30(2)(a) protection, and no injunction is warranted at this stage.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Scent-Sational Drama: Lotus V. ‘Splash’ Trademark Wars
Facts
The plaintiff owns “Lotus”-related trademarks in cosmetic and medicinal classes (Classes 3 and 5). The defendant uses “Lotus Splash” for face cleansers in the same classes, prompting the plaintiff’s Section 29 infringement claim. The defendant argues that “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, invoking Section 30(2)(a) protection.
Issues
- Whether the defendant’s use of “Lotus Splash” infringes upon the plaintiff’s registered trademarks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Whether the defendant can successfully claim the defence under Section 30(2)(a) based on the indication of product characteristics?
Plaintiff's Contention
Plaintiff contends “Lotus Splash” use by the defendant causes consumer confusion, emphasizing exclusive rights to “Lotus” marks and potential association due to the prominent use of “Lotus.
Defendant Contention
The defendant contends that their use of “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the product’s characteristics, particularly the inclusion of lotus flower extract. The defendant relies on Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, asserting that their use does not constitute infringement as it serves to convey information about the product. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s emphasis on confusion is unwarranted as their use is transparent about the key ingredient in their face wash.
Analysis
Section 29(2)(b) analysed for mark, goods, and confusion. Evaluation of consumer perception and potential association between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s products. Section 30(2)(a) defence examined “Lotus Splash” indicating lotus extract, dismissing pure descriptiveness, emphasizing indicative nature of use.
Judgement
Prima facie, there is likely infringement due to the similarity of marks and goods, but the defendant may be protected under Section 30(2)(a) for indicating product characteristics. Passing-off claim is rejected based on dissimilarities and price differences. Overall, the defendant may be entitled to Section 30(2)(a) protection, and no injunction is warranted at this stage.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Connect with our Experts to resolve your legal issues!
KAnalysis is a boutique full service law firm, well positioned to represent its international and domestic clients.
© 2007 – 2024 KAnalysis Consultant Private Limited. All Rights Reserved