- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court extends interim relief to Trent Ltd for infringement of Zudio trademark
Bombay High Court extends interim relief to Trent Ltd for infringement of Zudio trademark
The bench noted that impersonators were luring the public with false offers of setting up ‘Zudio’ franchises
The Bombay High Court has passed a John Doe (unknown parties) order in favor of the Tata Group-owned retail company Trent Limited by restraining unidentified infringers from using the company’s registered trademark Zudio.
Considering the urgency involved, the single-judge bench of Justice RI Chagla passed the order without hearing any of the defendants in the case.
Trent claimed that zudiofranchise.net and other defendants were using the company’s mark ‘Zudio’ and their domain name for services.
The retail company contended that the defendants were using its name, address, website address, and intellectual property rights to defraud the public by representing a false association with Trent. They were luring the public with false offers of setting up ‘Zudio’ franchises and defrauding individuals by collecting lakhs of rupees by impersonating Trent.
The court was convinced that Trent’s trademark/artistic work of ‘Zudio’ was distinctive and had garnered enormous goodwill and reputation among the public.
The bench directed Tucows Domain Inc. to file an affidavit pointing out the details of the person using Trent’s domain name. It directed Tucows to suspend the domain name till the suit was decided.
The 02 November court order was effective till 18 December. However, the judge was informed that the orders were not complied with. Thereafter, the interim relief was extended till the next hearing.