Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Latest Articles
Back
Infringement of Registered TM "Vistara" - Threat to Security
A suit filed by Tata SIA Airlines Ltd (the Plaintiff) soughtto restrain several portals and outlets from misuing their registered trademark; by selling accessories such as - mugs/labels/tags/badges bearing the mark of 'Vistara'
It was claimed that the former came accross of the alleged 'Vistara' branded products made available on the website of Pilot 18 Aviation Book Centre (the Defendants) in the month of February,2019. The latter have been associated with controling the web portal of www.pilot18.com.
In response to the suit filed and claims contained in the suit, the Delhi High Court observed the acts of the Defendant - of selling counterfeit labels/tags/mugs...and other merchandise of airlines (Vistara/Jet Airways/Spicehet), and furhter falsely claiming to supply these to the Airline authorities, in fact poses as a threat to security. These may lead to unauthorized entries into airports and other illegal activites.
On an added strength of the mark "Vistara" being registered in India and other jurisdictions, the Court opined that an order of permanent injunction against the owner of the portal was liable to passed (restrainig from using the mark 'Vistara'). He was also to be held liable such cost and damages. Justice Pratibha M. Singh directed the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh which was to be paid within the period of one month.
The Court considered the following while passing the order, “The mark Vistara is quite popular in India and has acquired a unique status. It is a distinctive mark that enjoys enormous goodwill and reputation in the airline, travel and tourism industry. Use of this mark, even in respect of unrelated services would create confusion and deception. It deserves to be declared as a 'well-known mark...
The sale of so much merchandise with the names of various airlines is not only violative of the trademark rights of the respective parties, including the plaintiff, but also poses a serious threat owing to the fact that some unauthorised persons may try to seek entry into airports etc...
Such a threat cannot be ignored by this court in the manner in which it is sought to be done by the defendants."
The court said it will consider on the next day, September 12, whether further action is required in view of the false plea made in the written statement and the apology tendered.
