Famous Trademark cases for Businesses -

A clear idea of the value of a trademark is provided by an overview of common trademark infringement issues. You may be aware of companies with the same brand name. Knowing about the infringement of famous companies' trademarks will help you prevent your company's trademark problems.

1. Academy Award v. GoDaddy

Another cyber-squatting problem in which the Academy Awards were aimed towards the GoDaddy domain retailers. It was a five-year war that lasted. Initially, in 2010, GoDaddy's decision to allow consumers to purchase confusingly similar domain names such as 2011Oscars.com, etc was filed by the Academy. It claimed that it allowed people to pass on the profits they chose to park on these domains and claimed a portion of the revenue.

Initially, the Academy proved to the court that GoDaddy sold 57 domains that were termed 'potentially confusing'. In the end, however, the judge ruled that GoDaddy had no "requisite intention of bad faith to profit" from its domain sales. The legal battle lasted 5 years between these two major brands and was considered a costly affair. Although this legal battle was certainly costly, the cybersquatting room favored it and GoDaddy came out clean.

2. The Coca Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd

In the above case, via a master agreement, Bisleri was the defendant who transferred and assigned the trademark rights to MAAZA. It also gave away to Coca Cola the rights of formulation, IPR, and know-how along with India's goodwill for bottling and selling a mango fruit drink, MAAZA.

The defendant has now applied for trademark registration in Turkey for the term MAAZA and is starting to export the same fruit drink under that name. As it was granted to them by a defender, Bisleri, the plaintiff Coca Cola, sought a permanent injunction and infringement damages for the move and trademark.

Finally, an interim injunction was given against Bisleri for the use in India of the trademark MAAZA, also for export, which was a direct cause of infringement of a trademark.

3. Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr

It is the first of India's seminal cyber-squatting rulings. The Delhi High Court held for the first time, a registered domain name equivalent to that of a trademark which afforded it equal protection. In this case, the defendant was,' Yahoo India! 'To shield the name of their domain now this was identical and phonetically similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, 'Yahoo! The court believed that individuals would be misled into believing that the same source would be carried by both realms.

Here the defendant argued that he had posted a note on the website, saying the same thing. However because the essence of the internet is such that it is impossible to correct the domain name simply by putting up a disclaimer, the court did not accept that the disclaimer was appropriate.

Also even internationally, Yahoo! was very renowned and the court noted that the accused 'Yahoo India' is almost identical, except that it uses the 'India' suffix.

4. Starbucks v. Freddoccino

The American coffee company and coffeehouse chain, Starbucks Corporation, was founded in Seattle, Washington, in 1971. The company has over 30,000 sites worldwide as of early 2019. Very few people know, however, that Freddoccino's founder is a Greek entrepreneur, Kostis Zompanakis. Freddoccino's success in the Greek market was such that it was responsible for 30 percent of the company's earnings. In January 2016, Starbucks sued the parent company of New York's Coffee Culture Cafe in 2008 for introducing a drink called the "Freddoccino."

In January 2016, Starbucks sued the parent company of New York's Coffee Culture Cafe for launching a drink called the "confusion in the marketplace" The complaint documents say that not only does the drink look similar to the Frappuccino, but the name structure was also too similar to trigger "brand equity." and dimii.

"For the word Frappuccino, Starbucks still owns the trademark and further alleged that Coffee Culture had developed misleading packaging to make the term "Freddoccino" appear to be trademarked when it is not. While the drink has been dubbed "Freddo," by Coffee Culture Cafe, the lawsuit is being sought by Starbucks. By preventing infringement on a tightly guarded trademark, with an annual value of approximately $1.5 billion, Coffee Culture may have avoided the problem.

5. Metro shoes v. Flipkart

Flipkart Private Limited is an e-commerce company that was established in 2007 in Bengaluru, India, by Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal.

Metro Shoes, a retailer of footwear, operates more than 200 stores in about 100 cities. The retailer filed a trademark infringement case in Bombay High Court against Flipkart and also charged that among other products, the e-commerce firm sells shoes under the brand name Metronaut. In July 2017, as a private label brand, Flipkart launched Metronaut. For men's clothing and accessories, Metronaut supports over 300 designs.

6. American Eagle v. Pantaloons

American Eagle, based in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is an American lifestyle apparel and accessories store.

Owned by the Aditya Birla Group, Pantaloons is an Indian fashion retail store.

American Eagle's parent company, Retail Royalty Company, filed against Pantaloons Fashion & Retail in the Delhi high court claiming that the brand and logo are deceptively similar to its American Eagle Outfitters brand and logo."

Although Retail Royalty Company is headquartered in the United States, this case is the first instance of international retail copyright infringement remotely. Fashion United states that Gap has also recently sued against brands based in India that market under the name "Gap Two." Even for non-international organizations, trademark monitoring on a global scale can be important.

7. London Dairy v. Londonderry

London Dairy sells premium ice cream variety; Londonderry sells cheap pieces of confectionery. They are the same, phonetically, and you would expect this to go the way of the Zara situation. The Bombay High Court did not, however, in April 2016. This is because everything was different except the brand's sound. The order held that there were no visual or structural similarities between the goods, and sided with the defendant in the absence of evidence of deceit or misrepresentation or variations in color, trade dress, the products, and their pricing (Londonderry).

Know more about, other landmark cases of trademark infringement, see the video below -

CASE OF BUDWEISER INFRINGEMENT

CASE OF AMWAY VS. AMAZON

BY -

Saumya Krishnani