Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

International Judgments On Third Issue

Judgments

Uploaded by

Nevadya Bhateja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views2 pages

International Judgments On Third Issue

Judgments

Uploaded by

Nevadya Bhateja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

THE PRODUCTS CLAIMED ARE NOT COUNTERFEIT AND ABSOLUTELY

GENUINE

American Circuit Breaker Corporation v. Oregon Breakers Inc, (406 F.3d 577) (9th
circuit), where the court holds that the differences between the products proved so
minimal that the consumers who purchase the alleged infringer’s goods get precise
what they believed that they were purchasing. ..... Territorial protection kicks in
under the Lanham Act where two merchants sell physically different products in
the same market and the same name....

3. Zip International Group LLC v. Trilini Imports Inc decided by New York
Eastern District Court on May 24, 2011 wherein the court holds : Trademark Law
does not reach the sale of genuine goods bearing a true mark even though the sale
is not authorized by the mark owner for there is no possibility of confusion.

Mr. Kaul, learned Senior counsel for the defendants have also refuted the
contentions of the plaintiff relating to meta tagging by submitted that the
defendants are selling the products which are genuine products of the plaintiffs,
thus they are entitle to promote themselves as the ones selling the plaintiffs
products and the way that can be described is a fair use defence and cannot
be categorized as infringement under Section 29 of the Act.

f) (POINTS NEEDED TO PROVE THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE NOT


GENUINE) (ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY
AUTHORITY FOR THIS) (JUST CHECK SECTION 30(4) KYA PATA
USMEIN KUCH NIKAL AAYE)

Sixthly, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the provisions of Section
30 (4) is also applicable where there are legitimate reasons for the proprietor to
oppose the further dealings of the products or the goods. The said legitimate
reasons as per Mr. Anand in the instance case are manifold and the same can be
highlighted in the following manner:  Material Differences/ Impairment of the
goods.
 Likelihood of consumer confusion
 Dilution of the trade mark
 Dissatisfied consumers leading to loss of goodwill and
reputation
 Disruption of Authorized distribution channels
 Possible liability under the Legal Metrology Act
 Possible Liability under the Consumer Protection Act
 Misrepresentation through the advertisements, deep hyper
linking and metatagging.

33. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that in the absence of any other
line of demarcation or difference between genuine or non genuine goods for all
practical purposes, the rigors of law u/s 29 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for
the purposes of infringement will be applicable to the fullest extent except what
has been provided as an exceptions within the section itself which is use either
being a registered proprietor or a permissive right holder. Therefore, a fortiori it
follows that act of importation of the goods bearing the mark of the registered
proprietor without the importer being a registered proprietor or permissive right
holder is statutorily engrafted infringement u/s 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy