Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Class Moot
Class Moot
( 2018-2019)
V/S
XYZ company…………………….(respondent)
IN THE MATTER OF
ABC COMPANY………………………………..PETITIONER
V/S
XYZ COMPANY………………………………RESPONDENT
1. TABLE OF CONTENT
2. Index Of Authorities
3. Statement of Jurisdiction
4. Statement of facts
5. Statement of Issues
6. Summary of agreements
7. Arguments Advance
8. Prayers
Cases Referred
Websites Referred
www.scconline.com
www.manupatra.com
www.supremecourtcases.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble district court of Pune has the jurisdiction to entertain this matter
under Article 134of the Trade Marks Act of 1999.
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 decides where a suit can be filed for
infringement, etc. the provision under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, reads
as follow:
(1) No suit—
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a “District Court
having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a
District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the
institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or
proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually
and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (2), “person” includes the
registered proprietor and the registered user.
2. ABC company is carrying out its business since 7 years and acquired a
trust of its customers
3. One of the bet selling product of ABC company was omega + and the
company had a turnover of about 7 million last year.
4. A newly emerged company with name XYZ launched its product with
Similar name omega plus
6. But the company started selling its product with name Omegha
Plus even before the examination of application by the registrar
which resulted in the huge loss to the ABC company
. Saving for vested rights.—Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a
registered user of registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use
by any person of a trade mark identical with or nearly resembling it in
relation to goods or services in relation to which that person or a
predecessor in title of his has continuously used that trade mark from a date
prior—
(a) to the use of the first-mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods
or services be the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or
In this recent judgement passed by the Delhi High Court, the Court recognized the
legal principle of Prior user of a mark. The Court’s verdict in the case has
reiterated the law that prior user of a trademark will override the subsequent user
even if the subsequent user has registered the trademark.
It is a well settled principle of Trademark Law that prior use of the goods will
override the subsequent user, even though subsequent user has a registered
trademark. Thus, the rights conferred by registration of trademark is subject to the
rights of the prior user of the mark.
Another recent case which establishes a similar legal proposition is the case
of Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors., wherein the
Supreme Court opined that a registered proprietor of a trademark does not possess
the right to prevent use by another party of an identical mark if that use common
The benefit of section 34 is available only when continuous Prior use the benefit is
not available early by applying for registration
Lord Oliver in the case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden
Inc.[7]enumerated three elements for a successful passing off action:
Thus, the passing action is essentially an action in deceit where the common
law rule is that no person is entitled to carry on his or her business on pretext
that the said business is of that of another[8].
laid down the test of passing off and observed that a passing off action
depends upon the principle that nobody has a right to represent his goods as
the goods of some body. In other words a man is not to sell his goods or
services under the pretence that they are those of another person. As per Lord
a misrepresentation
made by a trader in the course of trade
to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or
services supplied by him
which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trade
(in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence), and
which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by
whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do
so.
stated that passing off right is a broader remedy than that of infringement.
This is due to the reason that the passing off doctrine operates on the
general principle that no person is entitled to represent his or her
business as business of other person. The said action in deceit is
maintainable for diverse reasons other than that of registered rights which
are allocated rights under the Act.
GOODWILL
DESEPTIVE SIMILARITY
1. Civil remedies,
2. Criminal remedies
Civil Remedies
Suit for infringement/Passing off under section 134:- Suit for
Infringement/Passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any
trademark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s
trademark, whether registered or unregistered shall be instituted in
District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
Relief under Section 135:- Under Section 135(1) In a suit for
Infringement/Passing off if the court agree (on the request of plaintiff ),
can grant either:
1. Damages or
Hence it is submitted that the product launched Omega Plus though being
unregistered by ABC company is been protected by the principle of passing off
where the unregistered trademark product Gets remedies of passing off by one of
the way of permanent injunction under section 134 of Trademark act.
remedies to abc company for infringement and passing off against XYZ