Shape of goods may form an element of a trademark: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court (“Calcutta HC”) in the case of Super Smelters Limited (“Super Smelters”) v. SMC Power Generation Limited (“SMC”) granted an interim injunction to Super Smelter, whereby it restrained SMC from selling goods that looked similar to the trademarked goods of Super Smelter.
In this case, Super Smelters had trademarked the shape of their TMT bars which are used in the construction industry. It was contented by Super Smelters that SMC copied the shape of TMT bars and called them YY bars instead. It was contented that although the names were different, due to the similarity of YY bars and TMT bars, there was a chance where customers could mistake YY bars for TMT bars. The Calcutta HC, on acknowledging that the shapes of goods from an element of a trademark, and that copying the same could amount to trademark infringement, accepted the contentions of Super Smelters and granted an interim injunction.
The Calcutta HC, while coming to this decision, relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Pioneer Trading Corporation and Another, wherein the Delhi Court held that copying of the unique shape of goods could lead to confusion among customers and that surface pattern of a particular product may deemed to be a distinctive feature of that product.
QUICK VIEW:
- The Calcutta HC’s judgment marks an acceptance of the shape, trade dress, and surface pattern of goods as elements of a trademark thereby expanding the definition of trademark and indicating the court’s keenness towards ensuring that customers are not misled with respect to the origin of a product. We expect that this will help in further protecting the rights of trademark owners.
Private entities are duty bound to make their facilities friendly to differently-abled: Gauhati HC
The Gauhati High Court (“Gauhati HC”) in the case of Arman Ali v. Union of India and Others, passed a judgment that even private entities are duty-bound to ensure that their facilities are friendly to differently-abled people.
In the instant case, Arman Ali, who suffers from cerebral palsy, filed a writ petition against Gold’s Gym, which is a private gym submitting that he faced incessant discrimination at the gym.
The gym contended that it does not qualify as a “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is purely a private entity that does not discharge any public duty or function, and challenged the writ’s maintainability. However, the court rejected the contentions of Gold’s Gym and relied on The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“Act”), which specifies the rights of people with disabilities and covers actions of both government facilities and private spaces.
The Gauhati HC, on a reading of the Act, mandated the Gold’s Gym to take all measures in order to ensure that their facilities are friendly to differently abled and asked them to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000 to a NGO working for the welfare of differently-abled people. The Gauhati HC, further came down heavily on the Social Welfare Department (“Department”) for the lack of action in this regard and asked the Department to make sure all private bodies are compliant with the Act so that their establishment are differently-abled friendly.
QUICK VIEW:
- The Gauhati HC’s judgment can be considered as a landmark judgment as it is one of the first judgements to (i) note the difficulty faced by differently-abled people, and (ii) to direct the Department responsible to ensure all private bodies ensure that their premises are differently-abled friendly.
- By directing the Department to ensure compliance with the Act, it is hoped that the Department takes stringent actions against all private entities that discriminate against differently-abled people by making their premises non-disabled friendly.
- Although the Gauhati HC directed the Department to ensure compliance with the Act to ensure that all premises are disabled-friendly, it failed to put a strict timeline on this. In a country infamous for its delay, the lack of a strict timeline, will in all likelihood, lead to delay in implementing the Gauhati HC’s decision.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.