{"id":199,"date":"2025-03-17T08:39:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-17T08:39:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/?p=199"},"modified":"2025-03-17T08:39:41","modified_gmt":"2025-03-17T08:39:41","slug":"delhi-high-court-found-teccnopro-similar-to-technosport","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/index.php\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-found-teccnopro-similar-to-technosport\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court found Teccnopro similar to Technosport"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

BRIEF<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
PARTICULARS<\/strong><\/td>PLAINTIFF<\/strong><\/td>DEFENDANT<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Trade mark<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\"\"\/ TECHNOSPORT<\/td>\"\"\/ TECCNOPRO<\/td><\/tr>
Registration \/ application status<\/strong><\/td>Registered under application no. 1819411 and 5434922 on 18\u2033 May, 2009 and 04\u2033 May, 2022 respectively<\/td>Applied under no. 6331838 on 06.03.2024 as \u201cProposed to be used\u201d basis in Class 25 . Present status is Objected.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of\u00a0trade mark<\/a>, copyright, and passing off, against the Defendant for infringing its prior used and registered trade mark \u201cTECHNOSPORT\u201d under registration no. 1819411, by adopting a deceptively similar mark \"\". Both the marks fall under class 25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PLAINTIFF\u2019S SUBMISSIONS:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Qua its turnover: <\/strong>The Plaintiff through its predecessor has been continuously, openly and extensively using its trade mark TECHNOSPORT since 2009, and have a combined annual turnover of Rs. 2,28,07,36,029\/- in the FY 2021-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Qua knowledge:\u00a0<\/strong>The Plaintiff first week of December 2024 that the Defendants have started selling goods bearing the impugned mark TECCNOPRO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff also submitted its registration portfolio for the trade mark TECHNOSPORT and its formative marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It was submitted that the Plaintiff has also applied for copyright registration, namely \u201c\"\"\u201d and the device of the running man \u201c\"\"\u201d under no. 123780 and 123781 both dated 03.05.2023. It was further submitted that the above works to be considered as original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act, 1957.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff also submitted its sales record for the last 8 years, as tabulated below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It was contended that the Defendant\u2019s trade mark is deceptively similar<\/a> to Plaintiff\u2019s registered and copyrighted trade mark. Below is the comparison of the Plaintiff\u2019s registered trade mark and the Defendant\u2019s impugned trade mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison of the Trade Marks<\/td><\/tr>
Plaintiff\u2019s Registered Trade mark<\/td>Defendant\u2019s Impugned Mark<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td>\"\"<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

COURT\u2019S FINDINGS:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hon\u2019ble Court vide Order dt. 17.12.2024 passed an ad-interim ex parte injunction against the Defendant, restraining it from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting- for sale, trading in or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in manufacture and sale of garments or similar or like or allied goods under the impugned mark \"\"\/ TECCNOPRO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Advocates appearing for Plaintiff:\u00a0<\/strong>Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Prashansa Singh, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Advocates<\/p>\n\n\n\n