- 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
Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction In Favor Of FMI In Trademark Dispute
Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction in Favor of FMI in Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of FMI Limited, a leading manufacturer of measuring tapes, against Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. for passing off its"INDI" tapes with a deceptively similar mark, "INDEED."
FMI Limited, a prominent player in the measuring tapes industry, claimed to be the largest manufacturer in the Indian subcontinent and well-established in over 60 countries. The company adopted the "INDI" trademark in 2015 and has registered other related marks. FMI highlighted its significant presence on e-commerce platforms and reported sales of ₹67.85 crores and ₹76.63 crores for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24, respectively.
The defendant, Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd., operates in the same industry and launched a range of measuring tapes under the "INDEED" mark in July 2024, allegedly mimicking FMI's trade dress and color scheme.
In August 2024, the High Court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the "INDEED" mark. Upon further examination, Justice Amit Bansal found that the "INDEED" mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to FMI's "INDI" mark.
The Court observed that FMI had established goodwill and reputation with its "INDI" mark and noted discrepancies in the defendant's justification for adopting the "INDEED" mark. It rejected the defendant's argument that "INDI" was a generic abbreviation for "India," citing the lack of credible evidence.
The Court also dismissed the defendant's claim that "INDEED" was a sub-brand used alongside the "SCOTTS" mark, ruling that such distinctions were immaterial under the Trade
Marks Act. It highlighted that the defendant's use of an identical blue-and-white color scheme further supported FMI's claim of passing off. Concluding that the similarity between the marks was likely to cause consumer confusion, the Court made the interim injunction permanent, restraining the defendant from selling, advertising, or displaying measuring tapes and related goods under the "INDEED" mark or any deceptively similar variant.