We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Delhi High court in the case titled Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Exoncorp Private
Limited vide its judgment dated July 16, 2019 granted an
injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark EXON which
was held deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark EXXON. The
suit for trademark infringement and passing off was filed by the
Plaintiff which adopted the word 'EXXON' as its trademark
since 1967 in the U.S.A. The plaintiff claimed to be in the
business of gas exploration, oil production, refining and marketing
of petroleum products, chemical products, research and development
and various services related to the petroleum, chemicals and oil
industry. It was submitted that the mark 'EXXON' is a
registered trademark in over 160 jurisdictions, including in
India.
The dispute was between the Plaintiff's well known trademark
'EXXON' and the use of the mark 'EXON' by the
Defendant as part of its corporate name and trading style for
rendering information technology services. The primary arguments
raised by the Defendant were as under:
lack of territorial
jurisdiction;
the logo used by the Defendant is not
deceptively similar;
the Plaintiff's wordmark
"Exxon" is not registered in Class 42;
the Plaintiff and the Defendant's
area of business and services are different.
While dealing with jurisdiction issue, the court noted that the
Defendant's website and links on social media platforms showed
the Defendant's claim of carrying on business throughout India.
It was showed that the Defendant's website provided for online
payment to be made and contained banking terms, and an IFSC code
for receiving payments. On the LinkedIn page, Defendant claimed to
have 501-1000 employees.
The court relied upon settled position in law in respect of
interactive websites which was contained in the judgment of Banyan
Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. In
this judgment, the division bench held that if the Defendant has
purposefully availed of a particular place or geographical
location, the Courts of the said Forums would have
jurisdiction.
The court held that the website extract and the social media
platforms representations were sufficient enough to establish that
Defendant was offering its services and IT products across the
country and globally. The court also considered the nature of IT
services which can be provided from any corner of the globe and
observed that the Defendant has not only reached out through its
website but through its YouTube channel, Twitter and other
platforms and accordingly held that there is clear use of the mark
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff's mark was a well-known
mark and held that the Plaintiff is entitled to protect the mark
EXXON even in respect of IT services as the Plaintiff also has a
technology company providing IT services. The Court ruled against
the Defendant's stand that the services are distinct and
different from that of the Plaintiff and passed a decree in favor
of the plaintiff.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
We live, today, in an internet age, where human beings scattered all over the world are perpetually and constantly connected via social networking websites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and several more.
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
