- 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
Madras High Court Favors Lego In Trademark Infringement Case Against Leo Foods
Madras High Court Favors Lego In Trademark Infringement Case Against Leo Foods
Orders removal of the marks from the registry.
Denmark-based toy brand Lego has won a trademark battle against Hyderabad-based confectionery company, Leo Foods in the Madras High Court for using an identical mark on candies.
The bench of Justice PB Balaji directed the deputy registrar of trademarks to remove the impugned marks Lego Cuteheart and Lego Coffybond.
The order read, "The target consumers of both products are children, and their recapitulation to their favorite goods is mainly visual. Since Leo Foods not only copied the mark Lego but also its dominant features, it is likely that children would easily fall prey.”
The judge rejected the local firm's contention of Lego meaning ‘take and leave’, as submitted by Leo Foods. He also waved away the argument that the firm searched for traders in confectioneries under the name Lego before registering the trademark.
The bench ruled that Lego could not seek rectification in a different class before it was declared a well-known mark.
In 2003, Lego filed a case in a Secunderabad court, which held that the petitioner enjoyed a trans-border reputation and that the mark was well-known.
However, Leo Foods pleaded before the Telangana High Court and the appeal is pending. Meanwhile, a rectification petition was filed in the Madras High Court.