Delhi HC Orders Cookware Brand to Delist Products with ‘Amul’ Name from Online Platforms

Delhi HC Orders Cookware Brand to Delist Products with ‘Amul’ Name from Online Platforms

The Delhi High Court (HC) has recently ordered the owner of a cookware brand to stop producing products with the ‘Amul’ name and delist them from all the online platforms after well-known dairy brand Amul approached it in a Trademark Infringement lawsuit.

In the order passed on 28th October 2022, a single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh directed the cookware brand selling its products under the Amul name, Maruti Metals, to write to all online platforms if the listings are not removed. The HC has further directed the online platforms to give effect to the order passed. Consequently, all branded cookware and pressure cooker products bearing Amul’s name shall remain delisted from all e-commerce and other online platforms.

Additionally, the HC has directed the manufacturer to destroy all existing packaging of the cookware brand under the Amul name.

Other than the delisting of products, the HC has allowed Maruti Metals to use a new mark or name called ‘Amulya’ as an interim arrangement for its set of products with the color and style of writing entirely different and distinct from the Amul mark used by the plaintiffs including the Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union and Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited. The HC has also ordered the counsel at Maruti Metals to forward the new writing style and color combination to the plaintiffs’ counsel within a week.

The registered proprietor of Amul trademarks is the Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union. It has further licensed the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited to use the Amul trademarks for milk and milk products and other beverages and foods. The order specifies that Amul entered the dairy sector in 1948, and the Amul mark is well-known in India as one of the renowned brands for dairy products, procuring more than 250 lac kg of milk every day and owning the longest-running advertising campaign worldwide since 1966.

Amul moved to the Delhi HC in a trademark infringement lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the cookware brand from making, advertising, and selling saucepans, pressure cookers, and other cookware under the Amul Pressure Cooker or Amul Cookware mark, which it claimed is deceptively similar or identical to its own mark.

According to the HC, Amul is widely known across India, and dairy products and cookware are allied goods as they are both used in the kitchen. Therefore, it held that the use of an identical or deceptively similar mark concerning these products couldn’t be permitted as it may cause deception and confusion in the minds of the consumers. Furthermore, the HC held that the Amul brand deserves to be safeguarded well, even concerning unrelated goods, under the Indian Trademarks Act of 1999.

The HC, during the hearing, was informed that Maruti Metals was willing to change its cookware brand name from Amul to Amulya as an ad interim arrangement. While the plaintiffs were against this change, the HC held that the name Amulya used for cookware couldn’t be held to be deceptively similar or identical to Amul at this stage, specifically in the factual background of the said lawsuit.

The HC held that its point of view in the lawsuit in question is prima facie in nature, and the interim arrangement between the parties involved shall not bind the final judgment in the lawsuit post-trial. The matter shall next be heard on 24th January 2023. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Madras HC Temporarily Restrains MobilePe from Offering UPI/BHIM Services in TM Lawsuit

Madras HC Temporarily Restrains MobilePe from Offering UPI/BHIM Services in TM Lawsuit

In a Trademark Infringement lawsuit filed by PhonePe (the Indian digital payments and financial technology company headquartered in Bengaluru, Karnataka), the Commercial Division of Madras High Court (HC) temporarily restrained MobilePe from offering any BHIM or UPI services.

After prima facie satisfaction that a case of deception has been made out by PhonePe, which is in a similar business line, Justice M. Sundar passed the interim order. The Madras HC said that in place of performing a side-by-side comparison, it stepped into the shoes of an average man with imperfect recollection and ordinary prudence and found a prima facie lawsuit of deception against MobilePe.

Additionally, the Madras HC noted that a possible irreparable legal injury aspect qua ‘Payments and Financial Services’ [‘UPI’ and ‘BHIM’] was also made out, which moved the aspect of the balance of convenience towards the grant of limited order of status quo as alluded to supra. Therefore, prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable legal injury parameters impelled the Commercial Division of the Madras HC to grant the said limited order of status quo as of now.

The applicant/plaintiff in the said case, i.e., PhonePe, submitted evidence concerning it being the registrant or proprietor of the mark. It had even sent a Cease and Desist Notice to the defendant previously, which was followed by a reply, rejoinder, and surrejoinder. The plaintiff, after the surrejoinder, was made to believe that the defendant company, i.e., MobilePe, would not move ahead with its Trademark Application; however, on 29th August 2022, the plaintiff got to know that the defendant’s trademark application was approved.

After hearing the parties involved, the Madras HC got convinced that “contemplation of urgent interim relief” was made out under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. However, the Madras HC made it crystal clear that MobilePe and its related companies can very well continue with all other business activities currently carried out by them, such as wallet recharge services. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Manolo Blahnik Emerges Victorious in Decades-Long Trademark Dispute in China

Manolo Blahnik Emerges Victorious in Decades-Long Trademark Dispute in China

One of the world’s most successful shoe designers, Manolo Blahnik, has recently won a trademark dispute in China concerning the right to use his name in the nation, thereby ending a costly 22-year-old legal battle.

China’s highest court, in a rare ruling recently, canceled a trademark incorporating Manolo Blahnik’s name and owned by Chinese businessman Fang Yuzhou. This ruling shall enable Blahnik, who started his business in 1971 in London and got his shoe brand made famous by its celebrity fans and regular appearances in HBO’s TV drama Sex and the City in the early 2000s, to sell his brand in the fastest-growing luxury market in the world for the first time.

The Chief Executive of Manolo Blahnik and the founder’s niece, Kristina Blahnik, said in a recent statement delivered that being unable to capture the Chinese market was a huge hole in the brand’s existence; so, when the brand got the call, genuine tears were shed.

In China, there is a ‘first-to-file’ Trademark System, due to which many foreign companies fall into the hands of ‘pirates’ who try to sell trademarks when such businesses or brands enter China. As per one lawyer familiar with such cases and lawsuits, even small start-up-based British designers often come across their names already registered as trademarks in China.

Intellectual Property (IP) theft and infringement have been a source of major tension between China and its trade partners, specifically the United States. In recent years, things have somewhat shifted in China due to the amendments implemented in the nation in November 2019 designed to strengthen the Trademark Legislation. Consequently, there have been some high-profile wins for international brands in Chinese courts lately.

In 2021, one of the world’s major sports footwear and apparel manufacturers based out of the United States, New Balance, won a Trademark Infringement lawsuit against two local companies for imitating its ‘N’ logo and received Rmb25mn in damages. The company is now among the largest compensations granted to international brands in trademark court disputes.

Former National Basketball Association superstar Michael Jordan could stop Qiaodan Sports, the Chinese sportswear manufacturer, from using his trademark in a 09-year trademark infringement lawsuit. Jordan argued by saying that Qiaodan, which is the literal Chinese translation of his name, had infringed upon his exclusive rights.

Other international luxury brands, including British luxury goods brand Dunhill and Italian luxury fashion house Zegna, have also emerged victorious in trademark infringement lawsuits in China.

Manolo Blahnik had multiple earlier appeals rejected in China as the brand could not prove its reputation and image in the nation before 2000. Also, the legal experts believed that Fang Yuzhou appeared to be actively using the trademark for a shoe label he owned shares in during that period.

As per Kristina Blahnik’s statement delivered, the company’s plans for expansion in the Chinese market are still in the initial stages; however, she hopes to begin selling directly in the nation by the second half of next year. She said that the brand wouldn’t be racing with a rocket into China but instead walking gently.

According to an IP lawyer at a law firm in China, the ruling in question shall enable Blahnik and its retailer partners to sell their products in China without fear of legal retaliation and fight counterfeits being sold in and exported from the nation.

The privately-owned shoemaker shall face heavy competition from luxurious brands such as Louis Vuitton.

As per the most recently filed accounts, Manolo Blahnik had sales of €42.3mn in 2020, which is 7% down from that of the previous year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the brand has not directly sold its products in China, it has courted Chinese luxury consumers through stores in Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, and Taipei. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Delhi HC Restrains Use of Facebake & Other Facebook Formative Trademarks

Delhi HC Restrains Use of Facebake & Other Facebook Formative Trademarks

The Delhi High Court (HC) has permanently restrained the use of marks, including ‘Facecake,’ ‘Facebake,’ Facebook marks, the visual representation of Facebook, and other Facebook formative trademarks of the social media giant, in a Trademark Infringement suit filed by Meta (previously known as Facebook).

Justice Naveen Chawla has awarded nominal damages of Rs. 50,000 against the defendants and in favor of the American multinational technology conglomerate, Meta Inc. The Delhi HC has also directed the defendants to pay the amount of the trademark infringement lawsuit to the plaintiff, Meta.

Meta had moved to the Delhi HC after being aggrieved over the use of the ‘Facebake’ mark by defendant no. 1 Mr. Noufel Malol who was allegedly replicating the visual representation of Facebook by copying its look and feel, font, color scheme, and commercial impression, and was, therefore, deliberately trading off the significant goodwill established in Facebook marks.

The scenario mentioned above came into Meta’s knowledge when it saw the advertisement of the defendant’s Trademark Application in the Trade Marks Journal seeking Trademark Registration for its mark ‘Facebake.’

Meta had also initiated opposition proceedings against the said trademark application, claiming that the defendant’s use of the similar mark infringed upon its statutory and common law rights. It had further claimed that the defendant was involved in dilution, passing off, and unfair competition.

According to Meta, on service of the ad-interim order of injunction, the ‘Facebake’ mark was changed to ‘Facecake,’ which, in turn, was deceptively similar to Meta’s Facebook mark to the same extent.

The Delhi HC, in this matter, said it could never be disputed that Meta’s marks are well-known in India and that their overall reach and user base are pretty evident from the documents and info submitted by it. The Court further observed that Meta has all the trademark registrations in place in various classes of goods and the use of a similar mark undoubtedly amounts to unfair competition, which is and shall always be detrimental to the reputation and distinct character of Meta’s Facebook marks.

The Delhi HC also mentioned that though there is some distinction between Meta’s marks and those of the defendants, the visual representation of the marks adopted by the defendants depicts their mala fide intent in obtaining unfair advantage by using a mark similar to that of Meta. The Court even stated that the same results in dilution of Meta’s marks.

According to the Delhi HC, an unwary consumer might believe that the defendants, in this case, have some connection with Meta. Moreover, the mala fide intent of the defendants is pretty clear from the instance that upon knowing the ad-interim injunction passed by the Delhi HC, they changed their mark from ‘Facebake’ to ‘Facecake’ by changing only one letter but decided not to appear before the Court to defend the lawsuit in question. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Rogue Websites Restrained by Delhi HC from Using Amazon’s Trademark & Logo

Rogue Websites Restrained by Delhi HC from Using Amazon’s Trademark & Logo

Several rogue websites have been restrained by the Delhi High Court (HC) from using the trademark of the online marketplace, Amazon, and its logos or any deceptive variant that is identical or similar to the original mark. In this case, the Delhi HC noted that the activities of the said rogue websites have been causing financial loss to the innocent public. The Delhi HC also stated that it was of the view that the plaintiffs, including Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its other companies, have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction.

According to Justice Jyoti Singh, the balance of convenience in this scenario lay in favor of the plaintiffs, and they were very much likely to suffer from irreparable harm in case the prayed-for injunction wasn’t granted. She further mentioned that the defendants’ unauthorized activities have been causing immense financial loss to the unsuspecting and innocent members of the public.

The Delhi HC, till the next date of hearing, has restrained the rogue websites in question, their owners, others acting on their behalf, or any individual/entity from using the mark ‘Amazon,’ ‘Amazon.in,’ or any other deceptive variant, similar or identical to the plaintiffs’, i.e., Amazon’s marks, in any way, leading to their infringement.

Moreover, the Delhi HC has directed the Department of Telecommunication and the Ministry of Electronics and Information to issue orders and notifications calling upon the different internet and telecom service providers registered under them to prohibit and block the access to the rogue defendants and websites identified by the plaintiffs in this case.

The Delhi HC’s interim order has come while hearing a Trademark Infringement lawsuit filed by Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and its affiliates. The plaintiffs submitted that the rogue websites in question have been engaging in a pre-planned conspiracy to dupe and defraud innocent individuals by using Amazon’s marks without any authorization and illegally on the rogue social media accounts and websites operated by them or as part of the domain name registered by them.

In the lawsuit filed, Amazon specified that the said rogue defendants have been blatantly reproducing its website content and adopting a look and feel similar or identical to its official website, ‘www.amazon.in.’ It also mentioned that the defendants have been engaging in such deceptive and infringing activities to defraud innocent individuals looking forward to registering an ‘Amazon Easy Store.’ For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Space Needle Sues Local Coffee Chain Alleging TM Infringement Over Its Logo

Space Needle Sues Local Coffee Chain Alleging TM Infringement Over Its Logo

The Space Needle, an iconic, 605 feet tall spire at the Seattle Center (with an observation deck and a rotating restaurant), has recently sued a local coffee chain alleging Trademark Infringement. According to the iconic tower’s owner, Local Coffee Spot, with four locations in the Seattle area, has been using the Space Needle’s trademarked logo in coffee shop branding and merchandise.

Local Coffee Spot’s logo features a mug of hot coffee with rising steam that resembles the observation tower’s logo, widely used on branded merchandise.

The owner of the Space Needle, a private company, said that Local Coffee Spot’s logo copied the iconic tower’s trademarked design and consequently filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the US District Court in Seattle. Karen Olson, the head officer in charge of the Space Needle’s operations and marketing departments, stated that the legal action in question is unusual, if not unprecedented, for the company.

The co-owner of Local Coffee Spot, Beau McKeon, shared his feeling of surprise with the filing of this lawsuit. He said that he couldn’t believe that the venture he started as a way to employ people during the COVID-19 pandemic has now drawn a trademark infringement lawsuit. He also mentioned that he and his team are feeling very victimized, being small guys, and the entire scenario is beyond bullying.

According to Olson, the Space Needle has never sued any individual or entity alleging trademark infringement in her tenure of nearly ten years. She said that since trademarks are only valid if their owners enforce them well, the Space Needle’s marketing team keeps searching for unauthorized use or misuse of the iconic building’s name, image, and likeness. She further mentioned that the private company has worked with hundreds and hundreds of businesses whose logos didn’t comply well. She firmly believes that most of the time, people don’t realize that the Space Needle’s symbol is a Registered Trademark.

Olson stated that the Space Needle is neither asking for any monetary compensation in the lawsuit filed nor anything egregious – all it wants is others to stop using its licensed trademark for which the private company shall work with them.

As per Olson’s statement, the private company had contacted Local Coffee Spot last year in March and offered to have the graphic design team at the Space Needle assist them with developing a new logo. The lawsuit filed specifies that Local Coffee Spot didn’t respond meaningfully to the initial conversation initiated by the Space Needle.

However, McKeon, on the other hand, said that he did respond, and the designers at the Space Needle never followed through with their offer of working together to develop a new logo design. Emails shared by McKeon as evidence were last dated on 15th July 2021, in which he had replied to the designers at the Space Needle, saying, “Excellent, what are the next steps?”
According to McKeon, the next time he heard from the Space Needle was last year in November when its legal team had contacted him. At that moment, he felt the attorney gave him no good options. He mentioned that the Space Needle failed to produce a designer’s name, number, or contact information on several occasions. McKeon said that Local Coffee Spot was willing to comply; however, it is not as successful as other coffee outlets, making millions of dollars a year.
Both parties involved claim that the other ignored coming to the planned meeting held this year in April to discuss a path forward. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Delhi HC Declines Snapdeal’s Plea in Trademark Infringement Matter

Delhi HC Declines Snapdeal’s Plea in Trademark Infringement Matter

The Delhi High Court (HC) has recently declined the plea filed by Snapdeal (an Indian e-commerce company based out of New Delhi) seeking temporary relief against Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) in a Trademark Infringement issue.

Snapdeal was looking forward to getting the suspension done of all registrations granted by the registrars alleging that they infringed upon its ‘Snapdeal’ trademark.

It argued by saying that third parties having no connection with it have been registering domain names comprising the word or thread ‘Snapdeal,’ engaging in unauthorized activities like offering lucky draws through websites operating under the domain names in question and acting as customer service centers for Snapdeal’s offerings without obtaining its permission.

The Delhi HC, in this matter, said that it couldn’t stop or restrict such DNRs from issuing Trademark Registration for the ‘Snapdeal’ mark since it is, in general, not legitimate for the Court to hold in well advance that every alternative domain name comprising the term ‘Snapdeal’ would necessarily be infringing in nature.

A DNR manages the reservations of domain names while also assigning the IP addresses to the domain names in question. However, the Delhi HC stated that DNRs are also responsible for ensuring that the alternative domain names do not infringe upon any already existing Registered Trademarks. Furthermore, it mentioned that in the scenario where DNRs offer brokerage services for deceptively identical names, they would be held liable for trademark infringement. The Court even asked the DNRs to suspend any algorithm that works in the manner to create a possibility of making infringing alternative domain names available. It concluded by mentioning that DNRs cannot claim safe harbor protection in such matters.

In a recent statement delivered, a Snapdeal spokesperson said the company is pleased to see how the Delhi HC held that it is the responsibility of the DNRs to ensure that the alternative domain names offered by them do not infringe upon any already existing registered trademarks.

In its petition filed before the Delhi HC, Snapdeal had sought an injunction against the DNRs from offering any domain name containing its ‘Snapdeal’ trademark. While declining an interim relief, a single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said the Court couldn’t pass an order operating in the future, i.e., restricting the DNRs from offering the registration of any domain name, including the thread or word ‘Snapdeal,’ as the same would be attributing the Court clairvoyance that it does not possess. The Court further mentioned that Snapdeal would, therefore, be required to file a petition every time there is a domain name that it finds to be infringing. In its judgment, the Court agreed that it would undoubtedly be a long and cumbersome exercise, which can’t be helped as there is no shortcut to justice. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Does the Use of TM on Google Ads Program as Keyword Constitute Infringement – Delhi HC to Consider!

Does the Use of TM on Google Ads Program as Keyword Constitute Infringement – Delhi HC to Consider!

The question of whether or not a trademark’s use on the Google Ads Program as a keyword would constitute Trademark Infringement is all set to be duly considered by the Delhi High Court.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh will be making a formal judgment on the said question while dealing with a lawsuit filed by Upcurve Business Services Pvt. Ltd., which is a company specializing in the travel business. Upcurve operates a one-stop travel website by the name of ‘udchalo.com’ and has also won several awards.

The lawsuit involved the plaintiff’s (Upcurve) mark ‘udChalo,’ which is registered in Class 39, relating to both online and offline travel arrangements, booking of seats, including air ticketing, flight booking, tours and travels, and so on.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants in the lawsuit include Easy Trip Planners Pvt. Ltd. (EaseMyTrip.com) and HappyFares.in, both of which were accused of using the term ‘udChalo’ as a keyword on the Google Ads Program to attract online users to their respective websites.

After recording Easy Trip Planners’ recording, the Court had earlier passed an order restricting it from using the plaintiff’s trademark as a keyword. Since HappyFares.in wasn’t represented in the Delhi HC, the Court was forced to grant an ad-interim injunction to restrain it from using the plaintiff’s ‘udChalo’ mark as a keyword for promoting its own travel business. Consequently, the Court opined that the use of the mark ‘udChalo’ by HappyFares.in would constitute trademark infringement. The Court noted that since HappyFares.in was involved in the business of travel services, its use of the mark ‘udChalo’ as a keyword to promote its business would be a violation of the plaintiff’s exclusive Trademark Rights.

Concerning whether or not the matter in question would constitute trademark infringement in law and whether or not the use of a trademark as a keyword would constitute a violation of the Trademark Law, the Court has ordered that the same shall be treated as a part-heard.

Last year in November, the Delhi HC had noted that the search engine giant Google couldn’t exonerate itself from taking the liability of making sure that a keyword doesn’t constitute an infringement of a trademark.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao had also observed that permitting individuals who are not the rightful trademark owners to choose or use a keyword that is a Registered Trademark or use some parts of the trademark interspersed with generic words in the Ad-text or Ad-title may constitute trademark infringement or passing off.

Furthermore, the Court had noted that the use of registered trademarks as keywords amounts to ‘use’ in the course of trade in terms of the Indian Trade Marks Act of 1999. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

OCM Globe Sues Grocery Brands Alleging Trademark Infringement

OCM Globe Sues Grocery Brands Alleging Trademark Infringement

OCM Globe Inc. has recently filed a lawsuit against grocery brands Apollo Food International, Inc and A&C Best Food Trading in the Central District of California, alleging Trademark Infringement and unfair competition.

The lawsuit filed mentions that OCM is a California-based corporation doing the business of merchandising grocery products as a part of which it purchases products from suppliers and sells them to grocery stores, supermarkets, and retailers in the United States. It further specifies that OCM is the exclusive licensee and distributor of six grocery brand products such as Genki Forest and many others represented by Japanese and Chinese characters.

The lawsuit filed by OCM claims that Apollo Food International and A&C Best Food Trading are both New York-based corporations specializing in making, using, importing, and selling specific food products. According to OCM, among the defendants’ products, some products bear marks similar to its products, which are likely to deceive or confuse the customers.

According to the lawsuit, OCM had sent a cease-and-desist letter to Apollo Food International last year on 2nd February, demanding the corporation to cease its infringing activities. Similarly, it had sent a cease-and-desist letter to A&C Best Food Trading on 9th July 2021, demanding the corporation to cease its infringing activities as well immediately. The lawsuit further alleges that neither Apollo Food International nor A&C Best Food Trading has responded to their respective cease-and-desist letters.

OCM has stated that although the defendants have been put on notice, they are continuing to infringe upon its trademarks blatantly and intentionally, thereby causing OCM to suffer major harm, including significant loss of goodwill and revenue.

Besides OCM’s Trademark Rights being infringed upon, the lawsuit also claims that some beverage products provided by the defendants don’t comply well with the United States Department of Agriculture’s certification requirements, in particular concerning the ingredients used and product sourcing. OCM strongly believes that the defendants either failed to comply well with the mandatory certification requirements or put forward fake certification for some beverage products.

OCM brings five causes of action in its lawsuit filed, including:

  • Trademark Infringement Under the Lanham Act
  • False Designation of Origin & Unfair Competition
  • Trademark Infringement Under Common Law
  • Violation of the Business & Professions Code of California
  • Unfair Competition Under Common Law

The corporation is now looking forward to seeking damages, not a penny less than $500,000, injunctive relief, an accounting of profits realized by defendants in question, exemplary and punitive damages, disgorgement of all unjust enrichment, and attorneys’ costs and fees. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Nike Sues StockX Alleging Trademark Infringement in Digital Token Launch

Nike Sues StockX Alleging Trademark Infringement in Digital Token Launch

The US-based multinational corporation, Nike, has recently filed a Trademark Infringement lawsuit over unauthorized Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) against StockX in a federal court in New York.

StockX is an online reselling platform based in Detroit. It is engaged in reselling handbags, sneakers, and other goods. Last year in April, StockX raised $255m in funding, resulting in the company valuing at $3.8bn.

Headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area, Nike is engaged in the designing, development, manufacturing, and global sales and marketing of sports apparel, footwear, equipment, accessories, and other services.

The sportswear giant has alleged that StockX has begun selling new virtual products by using Nike’s trademarks without obtaining its permission. According to Nike, StockX has sold even more than 500 Nike-branded Vault NFTs so far.

In this matter, Nike has filed a 50-page lawsuit against StockX alleging trademark infringement with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In its complaint filed, Nike has asserted that StockX is ‘minting’ NFTs that prominently use trademarks owned by Nike without its authorization or approval. The sportswear giant has further mentioned that StockX is even involved in marketing those NFTs by using Nike’s goodwill and selling them at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting customers who believe or are most likely to believe that such ‘investible digital assets’ (as referred to by StockX) are authorized by Nike when in reality they are not.

As per Nike, it has never approved or authorized Nike-branded Vault NFTs sold and marketed by StockX. The sportswear giant strongly believes that such unsanctioned products are very much likely to mislead the customers, create a fake association between such products and Nike, and dilute Nike’s widely-recognized trademarks. It mentioned that the unapproved and unauthorized branding of Vault NFTs with Nike trademarks would jeopardize the capacity of Nike’s widely-known Registered Trademarks to identify its own set of digital goods in the metaverse and beyond and even affect its overall reputation through an association with inferior digital products.

Nike has written in its lawsuit that despite recognizing firsthand the enormous value of its brands, StockX chose to compete in the NFT market by not taking the time to create or establish its Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), but instead by conspicuously freeriding, that too almost exclusively, on the back of Nike’s widely-known trademarks and their associated goodwill.

Nike also mentioned that use of its trademarks by StockX to enter the digital collectible market prevents the sportswear giant of its exclusive right to use its registered trademarks within the medium.

In this case, StockX has replied by saying it has never stated or implied that the NFTs are tied, associated with, sponsored by, or officially connected to a third-party brand. StockX is confident that its customers understand the difference between its Vault NFTs and the third-party products to which they correspond.

Katy Cockrel, the Vice President of Communications at StockX, has said that StockX customers have been trading a wide range of products on the StockX website, thereby trusting the platform to verify their authenticity and shipping products back and forth in each trade.

As part of its lawsuit, Nike has requested damages and that the court in its judgment would stop StockX from selling NFTs possessing Nike’s trademarks.

Nike filed this lawsuit against StockX after purchasing RTFKT Studios (an apparel and footwear startup based on NFTs) for an undisclosed sum in December.

RTFKT Studios specializes in creating virtual sneaker designs, memes, and many other collectible exclusives inspired by video games.

According to several reports, the sportswear giant has plans to launch various virtual products later this month. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Older Posts