Introduction:
Plaintiff’s Stance:
The Plaintiff is in the business of creating, producing, and selling good quality bags directly under its registered trademark “SKYSPIRIT”. The Plaintiff has spent a huge amount on advertisement and has also made high amount revenues from online sales. It was further asserted that Flipkart Internet Private Limited had given him “Certificates of Achievement” for achieving “Gold Seller Status on the Flipkart Marketplace for exceptional performance.”, which proved that Flipkart Internet Private Limited appreciated the volume of sales that Mr. Alam produced and obtained for the premium quality/highly rated bags it offered under its registered trademarks. In addition, the plaintiff claims that Flipkart Internet Private Limited gave a “Master Planner” award because the plaintiff’s products never ran out of stock, which improved the overall consumer experience, the plaintiff alsoruns a website selling goods under its registered trademarks showcasing a sizable online presence. Plaintiff further stated that the Defendant No. 2 filed a rectification of its registered mark before the trademarks registry just to change the status of the trademark application from registered to unregistered so it can continue selling its counterfeit goods on the platform of Flipkart.
Question Before the Court:
The Plaintiff argued that the defendants no. 2 to 4 have set up fake listings by using the plaintiff’s registered trademark, “SKYSPRIT,” on Defendant No. 1’s platform and therefore are trying to sell their own fake/counterfeit items on the said listings with the plaintiff’s registered trademark in addition to mapping their fake products on the plaintiff’s product listings under its registered Trademarks. Even though the fake listings include the name of the plaintiff’s trademark, the goods sold or offered for sale under the said listings bear other trademarks, such as “fedra,” “Astro,” “Beston,” and “Beston Life,” but that their trademark, designs and further details are depicted in the same way as they are on the listings of the plaintiff. It was further stated that complaints of Mr Alam to Defendant No. 1 Flipkart were left unresolved. As a result, the plaintiff moved forward to the ad-interim, ex-parte urgent reliefs he requested in the present matter.
Observation:
The court carefully considered the arguments and read the accompanying application and the documents filed by the plaintiff, Shri Mahboob Alam. The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff has established a solid basis for granting exparte ad interim relief. The balance of convenience also lied in the favour of Plaintiff for the issuance of an interim order. The court was convinced that denying the plaintiff’s request for an ad-interim order to safeguard its IP rights would result in irreparable loss and harm to the business.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the defendant no. 2 to 4 should be restrained from listing/mapping under the name of “SKYSPIRIT” as it could be confusing for the consumer sand also violation of Mr. Alam’s Intellectual Property rights. They were further restricted from selling, offering to sell, marketing goods that are identical or similar to the goods of the plaintiff.
In this case plaintiff, Mr Mahboob Alam was represented by Shri Anshuman Upadhyay and Shri Naseem, who are an integral part of Markshield.
Related cases
-
Akash Agarwal v Flipkart Internet Private Limited, CS (COMM) 492 of 2022, decided on 02-08-2022.
-
Tibra Collection Vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
-
Rekha Nath v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Follow Us On
Related Articles
The post Mr Mahboob Alam vs Flipkart appeared first on Markshield.
This post first appeared on Intellectual Property Rights In India, please read the originial post: here
