Trademark Infringement KENT vs KENTECH In a recent judgement (19th September. 2017), Delhi High court ruled that the name of company KENTECH RO SYSTEMS and their domain name www.kentechro.com is infringing upon the trademark KENT (a clear-cut case of Trademark Infringement).
This judgement is an eye opener for those who choose the name of the company similar to an existing company or add some word before or later the name of an existing brand while suggesting a name for approval of the company name by ROC. Even if the registrar of companies approves such names, we must advise our clients that practice of keeping company name or domain name deceptively similar to any other person is bad in law and the original person will very easily obtain a stay and seek damages.
While holding a case of Trademark Infringement the finding of the judge, in this case, was that the word KENT of the plaintiff is found as subsumed in the word KENTECH of the defendant and held that it violates section 29 (1) read with section 29 (2) and 29 (5) of the Trademark Act. The very act of the opposite party in adopting and using a mark which is similar to the plaintiff has caused or will cause irreparable loss and damage to the business of the plaintiff under the brand name KENT. The court further found that when the defendant’s mark is closely, visually and phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff, then no further proof is necessary as held in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navarattana Pharmaceutical Lab. AIR 1965 SC 980.
Though the infringing party remained absent throughout proceeding and judgement was delivered ex parte still court awarded damages on the claim of loss of profit (in the absence of any material to show if the opposite party actually made any profit). Our advice in all trademark infringement cases is to represent your version, being absent from the court proceedings does not help.
Kent RO Systems Ltd VS KENTECH RO SYSTEMS
Trademark Infringement KENT vs KENTECH In a recent judgement (19th September. 2017), Delhi High court ruled that the name of company KENTECH RO SYSTEMS and their domain name www.kentechro.com is infringing upon the trademark KENT (a clear-cut case of Trademark Infringement). This judgement is an eye opener for those who choose the name of the company similar to an existing company or add some word before or later the name of an existing brand while suggesting a name for approval of the company name by ROC. Even if the registrar of companies approves such names, we must advise our clients that practice of keeping company name or domain name deceptively similar to any other person is bad in law and the original person will very easily obtain a stay and seek damages.
While holding a case of Trademark Infringement the finding of the judge, in this case, was that the word KENT of the plaintiff is found as subsumed in the word KENTECH of the defendant and held that it violates section 29 (1) read with section 29 (2) and 29 (5) of the Trademark Act. The very act of the opposite party in adopting and using a mark which is similar to the plaintiff has caused or will cause irreparable loss and damage to the business of the plaintiff under the brand name KENT. The court further found that when the defendant’s mark is closely, visually and phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff, then no further proof is necessary as held in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navarattana Pharmaceutical Lab. AIR 1965 SC 980.
Though the infringing party remained absent throughout proceeding and judgement was delivered ex parte still court awarded damages on the claim of loss of profit (in the absence of any material to show if the opposite party actually made any profit). Our advice in all trademark infringement cases is to represent your version, being absent from the court proceedings does not help.