- 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
Vistara Tells Delhi High Court It Would Not Claim Trademark Rights Over ‘Fly Higher’ Slogan
Vistara Tells Delhi High Court It Would Not Claim Trademark Rights Over ‘Fly Higher’ Slogan
The Tata-owned airline had proposed a solution to Frankfinn Aviation Services to settle the matter
The Delhi High Court has been apprised by the Tata-owned Vistara Airlines that it will not claim any trademark rights in the expressions ‘Fly High’ or ‘Fly Higher’.
In the Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited vs Tata Sia Airlines Ltd case, the undertaking was given before the bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a trademark suit filed by Frankfinn Aviation Services, which provides training in the aviation and hospitality sectors.
Frankfinn had staked a claim to trademark rights in the expression ‘Fly High.’ The suit was filed after Vistara began using the ‘Fly Higher’ slogan in 2018 in its advertisement campaign.
In February 2022, the High Court restrained Vistara from using the slogan after Frankfinn moved the Court for relief. The order was vacated in November 2022.
Thus, putting an end to the dispute, in July last, Vistara proposed a solution to Frankfinn. The Tata-owned airline said it would not file any application to register ‘Fly High’ or ‘Fly Higher’ as a trademark if Frankfinn agreed that the use of the two marks in Vistara's ad campaigns would not constitute trademark use.
Justice Singh noted that Frankfinn agreed not to object to a non-trademark use of the slogans. Vistara stated that it would not use the expression ‘Fly Higher’ in a trademark sense and not oppose Frankfinn’s trademark claim for ‘Fly High.’
The bench, however, stated, “The defendant (Vistara) is free to use 'Fly High' or 'Fly Higher' in a non-trademark sense and as a part of the keywords, advertising campaigns, and hashtags. The plaintiff (Frankfinn) has no objection in this respect.”
The Court clarified that those terms were binding only on the immediate parties and “shall not be read against any other entities including group companies.”
Thus, it disposed of the suit filed by Frankfinn last year.
Advocates Kapil Midha and Samiksha Gupta represented Franfinn Aviation Services.
Tata Sia Airlines (Vistara) was represented by advocates Kruttika Vijay, Aditya Gupta, and Mukul Kochhar.