- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai...
ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai | Question Of Trademark's Proprietorship To Be Determined By Registrar: Bombay High Court
Amisha Shrivastava
22 July 2022 5:06 AM GMT
The Bombay High Court has clarified that its previous decision of 2020, allowing the trademark infringement suit filed by ISKCON Mumbai against a clothing manufacturer was limited to recognizing ISKCON as a well known trade mark in India within the meaning provided in Sections 2 (1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse made it clear...
The Bombay High Court has clarified that its previous decision of 2020, allowing the trademark infringement suit filed by ISKCON Mumbai against a clothing manufacturer was limited to recognizing ISKCON as a well known trade mark in India within the meaning provided in Sections 2 (1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse made it clear that through the said judgment, the High Court has in no way recognized ISCKON Mumbai as the sole and exclusive proprietor of the mark.
"Registrar of Trademarks, is therefore, bound by the finding that ISKCON is well-known mark. As to who is entitled to the use of that mark or can be held to be its registered proprietor are questions expressly left open", the court said.
The clarification comes in an appeal preferred by ISKCON Bangalore, represented by Senior Advocate Dr Birendra Saraf,aggrieved by the observations that the trade mark which is associated exclusively with ISKCON Mumbai.
Senior Advocate Dr Veerandra Tulzapurkar was representing the respondent.
The court clarified that the observations made in the 2020 Order were limited to ISKCON being a well-known trademark. It didn't say anything about whether Mumbai ISKCON had exclusive proprietorship or a right of concurrent user. These issues will be determined by the Registrar of Trademarks, it said. It added that since ISKCON Bangalore was not a defendant to that suit, the order in question "cannot bind" it.
The court stated, "the observations of the learned Single Judge are not to be construed as finally determining any claims or contentions that the appellants may have in regard to proprietorship of the mark, as also whether theirs is a claim of exclusive proprietorship or of a right of concurrent user".
Case no. – Interim Application (L) No. 12003 of 2021 with Interim Application (L) No. 12001 of 2021 with Commercial Appeal (L) No. 11675 of 2021
Case Title – International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors
Coram - Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse
Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
