- 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
Killer Jeans Files Trademark Infringement Suit Against Netflix Series "Killer Soup" in Bombay High Court
Killer Jeans Files Trademark Infringement Suit Against Netflix Series "Killer Soup" in Bombay High Court
Clothing brand Killer Jeans filed a lawsuit against the creators of the Netflix series 'Killer Soup' at the Bombay High Court, alleging trademark infringement of their registered trademark 'KILLER'.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited (KKCL), a clothing company, filed a commercial suit against the makers of a Netflix series in the High Court on January 18, seeking ₹25 crore in damages for alleged trademark infringement.
The suit asserts that the trademark "KILLER," registered by KKCL between 2001 and 2004, has acquired significant distinctiveness and is exclusively associated with the plaintiff by both the trade and the general public.
The suit states that the public perceives any product or service bearing the "KILLER" trademark as originating from KKCL.
KKCL discovered the "Killer Soup" trailer on Netflix on January 9 and noted the similarity between the series title and their registered trademark "KILLER".
KKCL sent a legal notice to Macguffin Pictures and Netflix India requesting the halt of their trademark "KILLER" usage. After facing no response, they retained law firm Gajria & Co. to pursue legal action through the court.
KKCL urged the court to issue a permanent injunction forbidding the defendants from employing the "Killer Soup" title or any other designation bearing a likelihood of confusion with its registered trademark "KILLER".
KKCL demanded a court order for the complete removal of the "Killer Soup" branding from websites, streaming platforms, and social media of the production team and actors, alongside seeking financial compensation for damages.