Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd v. Dhiren Krishna Paul (2012):
Quick answer: what is this case brief about?
The court barred 'Health and Glow Clinic' from using the name, finding infringement under $§29(4)$ despite dissimilar services due to unfair reputational advantage:
FACTS:
Plaintiff has a registered trademark by the name of ‘Health and Glow’ since 1999, selling beauty and cosmetic products: The defendants started conducting business under the name ‘Health and Glow Clinic’: The plaintiffs filed suit for infringement of trademark asking for injunctive reliefs under S29(4):
ISSUE:
Was there likelihood of confusion and infringement?:
HELD:
The court found that the defendants were taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff’s TM: They had no explanation for using the same words Health and Glow and were found to have no due cause: 29(4)(b) mentions that the goods and services do not necessarily have to be similar for infringement to occur: So, the defense provided by the defendant that they were not selling the same products was nil: Hence all the requirements of S.29 (4) were fulfilled, and the court held the case in favour of the plaintiff, barring the defendants from using the name ‘Health and Glow’:
Video Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgJRQxPQ5-E&list=PL1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=2