{"id":98,"date":"2024-07-29T14:00:18","date_gmt":"2024-07-29T14:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/?p=98"},"modified":"2024-07-29T14:00:20","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T14:00:20","slug":"arrow-v-sparrow-delhi-hc-restrains-the-use-of-word-sparrow-for-tag-fasteners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/29\/arrow-v-sparrow-delhi-hc-restrains-the-use-of-word-sparrow-for-tag-fasteners\/","title":{"rendered":"ARROW V. SPARROW: Delhi HC restrains the use of word SPARROW for TAG FASTENERS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Brief:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Type: Suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Copyright, and Trade Mark against passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dispute in brief:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against Defendants for dishonestly adopting a blue and white box packaging \/ trade dress containing a circular device for selling goods, namely TAG FASTENERS such as Tag Pins and Loops Pins; <\/em>and the mark SPARROW, being deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ARROW and its blue and light blue coloured Tag Fasteners box packaging \/ trade dress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competing Products:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff\u2019s Packaging<\/td>Defendant\u2019s impugned packaging<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td> <\/em> \"\"<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td>\"\"<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Contentions:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It was contended that on account of long, continuous and exclusive use, promotion and advertisement, the Plaintiffs\u2019 trade mark<\/a> \u2018ARROW\u2019 and blue and light blue box packaging\/ trade dress, has acquired formidable goodwill, reputation and a great amount of distinctiveness within the minds of consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was further contended that the Defendants\u2019 impugned Blue and White box packaging containing circular device; and the mark SPARROW, is a clear attempt to ride piggy back on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs. The impugned activities of the Defendants are unlawful and amounts to infringement of Plaintiff\u2019s trade dress, and unfair competition, which is in turn causing confusion and deception amongst the public and loss to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Defendants are ought to be restrained<\/a> by way of an ad interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff’s trade mark registrations<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade Mark<\/a><\/td>Class<\/td>Number<\/td>Goods<\/td>Status<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"

<\/td>		26<\/td>643102 dated 17.10.1994<\/td>Plastic Tag Gun and implements (Hand Operated) Gun (Hand Tools) Gun Hand operated for the Extrusion of Mastics<\/td>Registered until 16.10.2024<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td>26<\/td>871619 dated 17.08.1999<\/td>Plastic tag pins<\/td>Registered until 16.08.2019.<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td>26<\/td>781283 dated 08\/12\/1997<\/td>Plastic tag pins<\/td>Registered until 8.12.2017.  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Court’s findings:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that the impugned activities of the Defendants are unlawful and amounts to infringement of Plaintiff’s trade dress and unfair competition. A Prima Facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction was made out. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained<\/a> from dealing with tag fasteners, including tag pins and loop pins or any allied or cognate goods used in Sewing and Garment industry in blue and white box packaging \/ trade dress along with a circular device, or with the mark SPARROW which amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff’s trade mark ARROW.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ADVOCATES APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFF: <\/strong>Mr. Sachin Gupta, Manan Mondal, Prashansa Singh and Rohit Pradhan<\/p>\n\n\n\n