Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
|
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Victoria Cross to be removed from a trademark dispute with Victorinox. In an ongoing trademark dispute with Swiss Army Knifemaker Victorinox, the Delhi High Court stated a prima facie view against users of the mark "Victoria Cross," stating that they had attempted to mislead the High Court with "half truths." (Victorinox AG v. Dinesh Gupta and others) The claimants of "Victoria Cross" (appellants) also tried to annex the declaration against them, together with a police complaint, without mentioning it in the appeal, according to a Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla.
By a January 27, 2017 declaration, the first appellant, Dinesh Gupta had acknowledged that he had worked for nineteen years under one, Ashok Sawhney and his group companies and that he had not carried on business under the mark "Victoriacross" while he was in Gupta's employment. Pertinently, he also undertook not to use the brand “Victoriacross” for any kind of business whatsoever in the said declaration. Added to this, the Court was told that Sawhney had assigned the mark "VICTORIA CROSS" to Victorinox by an assignment deed on July 7, 2020. The appellants' failure to disclose the declaration properly led the Court to take a prima facie view against them. The appellants had not disputed the legitimacy of the 2017 declaration, according to the Court. The appellants' contention that the declaration was a confidential one that would eventually be torn was also rejected by the Bench.
It was nearly hard for the appellants to establish a name or reputation in the mark "VICTORIA CROSS" between 2017 and July 30, 2019, when Victorinox's proprietors obtained an injunction order from a trial court, according to the Court. The appellant-company had also contradicted itself at various stages of the appeal, according to the Court. In light of this, the Court expressed its reluctance to hear the appellants' challenge to the trial court's injunction order. Instead, the Court determined that the appellants were prima facie liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court has given the appellants two weeks to file their response before proceeding with the proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. The Court further ordered that both appellants, who are both husband and wife, be present in court when the case is next heard on August 23.
Tags : #DELHI HIGH COURT #TRADEMARK INFRIGNMENT #SECTION 340 CRPC #IPR #TRADEMARK ACT
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.