Trademark infringement is violation of the exclusive rights
attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark
owner. Infringement may occur when infringer uses a trademark which
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another
party, in relation to products or services which are identical or
similar to the products or services which the registration covers.
An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a
party which infringes its registration. Raising such a grievance is
the case of Alberto Co v. R.K. Vijay & Ors 166(2010)DLT391,
wherein the issue of permanent injunction came up. Alberto Co in
this pursuance, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain
the alleged infringer R.V. Vijay and his co-parties from using the
trademark "VOV", which Alberto owns.
Alberto contended that they had been using the trademark
"VO5" alongwith the term "ALBERTO" since 1955
and had built a valuable goodwill and reputation in the course of
trade. The mark "Alberto VO5" was registered since May
1960. Alberto Co also stated that they had filed applications for
registration of "VO5 no-go" and the word mark
"VO5" which were still pending. It showed copies of its
annual report, balance sheets, statement of cash flows in the last
few years to contend that they had built an enviable reputation and
goodwill for their products. They also stated that they had been
regularly and continuously advertising their products throughout
the world including India. In India according to Alberto Co. goods
are sold through an exclusive licensee, namely M/S Alberto-Culver
International . They also stated that one of the defendants, VOV
Cosmetics Co. Ltd had adopted the trademark VOV, for the sale of
its goods which resulted in confusion amongst customers.
The third defendant VOV Cosmetics Co. Ltd., engaged in
manufacturing and trading in goods similar to that of Alberto, also
filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground
that Alberto Co. had not disclosed that VOV is involved in any
trading activity. Moreover the court rejected the suit against the
first two defndants, in regard to which another application was
filed against the first two defandants but was subsequently
The Court opined that the premise on which the suit was founded
in Delhi was the residence of the first two defendants, who were
said to be marketing VOVC's manufactured products. The Court
upon consideration of the submissions of the parties held that the
first two defendants were selling VOVC'S goods in India and
even though VOVC does not has an office in India it has still
infringed Alberto Co.'s trademark.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).