- 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
Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court rules in favour of Voltas
Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court rules in favour of Voltas
The company accused the defendant of copying the look, color scheme, and photographs of its website
The Delhi High Court has ordered the suspension of the domain name and blocking access to the website www.myvoltascare.com in a trademark infringement suit filed by Voltas Limited, a home appliance company.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma restrained Ashok Kumar, the owner of the website, from using the registered and well-known trademark Voltas and its logo, including the website or listings on social media websites or e-commerce sites.
The plaintiff, Voltas, contended that it had been continuously and consistently using the trademark and trade name Voltas since 1954. It was a coined mark possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word, for its own business activities.
It alleged that Kumar had copied the entire look, feel, color scheme, and photographs of the plaintiff's website. This meant, he was intentionally and dishonestly defrauding customers by projecting itself to be Voltas. The company submitted that it had received various complaints from the customers.
The court found that Voltas had a good prima facie case in its favor and that Kumar's activities were causing irreparable loss and injury to the company.
In its order, the court observed, "The defendant No.1 is directed to lock/block/suspend the domain name. Defendant No.3 and 4 are directed to block access to as well as disable the website."
It directed Voltas to comply with the provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure.