{"id":10289,"date":"2022-01-18T06:40:21","date_gmt":"2022-01-18T06:40:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/?p=10289"},"modified":"2022-01-18T06:41:54","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T06:41:54","slug":"trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz &#8211; An Overview"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">Dealing\nwith an Intellectual Property Dispute, the Delhi High Court has observed considerably\nthat striking similarities in packing colour, style and font amount to\nTrademark Infringement. Scroll down to check the Trademark Infringement case between\nTotal vs Topaz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_65 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-light-blue ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<label for=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a310d6d6c6cf\" class=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-label\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/label><input type=\"checkbox\"  id=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a310d6d6c6cf\"  aria-label=\"Toggle\" \/><nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz\/#A_Brief_Facts_of_the_Trademark_Infringement_Case_Between_Total_vs_Topaz\" title=\"A Brief Facts\nof the Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz\">A Brief Facts\nof the Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz\/#Submissions_of_Plaintiff\" title=\"Submissions of\nPlaintiff\">Submissions of\nPlaintiff<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz\/#Defendant_Submissions_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Infringement_Case_Between_Total_vs_Topaz\" title=\"Defendant\nSubmissions &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz\">Defendant\nSubmissions &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-case-between-total-vs-topaz\/#Findings\" title=\"Findings\">Findings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Brief_Facts_of_the_Trademark_Infringement_Case_Between_Total_vs_Topaz\"><\/span>A Brief Facts\nof the Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz is concerned around two cigarette brand, the petitioner accusing defendant-appellant of using their Trademark TOTAL in their mark TOPAZ (also written in the similar style and font as per the petitioner). The plaintiff or petitioner alleged that the mark is dishonestly identical to the plaintiff&#8217;s mark and is created using combinations or permutations from their mark and thereof amounts to Trademark Infringement of the TOTAL brand. It also raised objection on the use of the vital features of their product&#8217;s Trade Dress or packaging, again leading to <a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/trademark-infringement\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>Trademark Infringement<\/strong><\/a> subsisting in the packaging or Trade Dress of the Trademark TOTAL of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Delhi\nHigh Court, through its previous order, had barred defendants, its partners,\ndirectors, or owners, as the case may be, its offices, agents &amp; servants\nfrom selling, advertising, manufacturing, offering for sale,\nindirectly\/directly dealing in any business illegally using the Trademark TOTAL\nof the plaintiff (identical to the mark TOPAZ that is disputed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Submissions_of_Plaintiff\"><\/span>Submissions of\nPlaintiff<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nBench was hearing or checking an application under <strong><em>Order 39 Rule 4<\/em><\/strong> for\nsetting aside the impugned injunction order against TOPAZ. In this Trademark\nInfringement Case Between Total vs Topaz, the plaintiff claimed to have adopted\nthe TOTAL brand in 2015 and stated to have revealed about the defendant\u2019s brand\nTOAZ only in mid-July 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nplaintiff or petitioner submitted that while they had no problem with the use\nof the Trademark TOPAZ by the defendant, they raised objections concerning the\nviolating packaging of the defendant&#8217;s product &amp; how the defendants were\ndeliberately or intentionally targeting the plaintiff&#8217;s customers. It\nemphasised several examples where both the parties had similar packaging:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Similar legal warning that\ncovers a huge area of the package;<\/li><li>The basic background colour of\nthe cigarettes box is peculiar and the unique shade of dark metallic black\n&amp; blue colours is similar to that of plaintiffs;<\/li><li>Similar usage of font &amp;\nletters placement on the front &amp; backside of the boxes;<\/li><li>Use of blue &amp; silver colour\npanel;<\/li><li>Both the boxes include ribbed\nlines which run across their respective surfaces;<\/li><li>Words mentioned as Twin\nFlavours and Dual Flavours;<\/li><li>The golden dotted ring &amp;\ncircle show the brand name of both parties.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Advocate\nPravin Anand, who fought the case on behalf of the plaintiff and represented\nthem, also submitted prior to the Court that while it may be correct or true\nthat the defendant had been using the name TOPAZ since 2011, but the packaging\nor Trade Dress was different then, and it has been remodelled currently, making\nit identical to TOTAL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendant_Submissions_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Infringement_Case_Between_Total_vs_Topaz\"><\/span>Defendant\nSubmissions &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ndefendant claimed that they have been using the TOPAZ mark since 2011, whereas\nthe plaintiff or petitioner only adopted their mark in 2015. Senior Advocate\nJayant Mehta stated that cigarette users are very exacting about the flavour,\nlength, filter of the mark or brand they use, which is why they don&#8217;t get\nconfused even if some brands use identical fonts, sizes, colour scheme, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He submitted that some colours like red, gold, black, blue and their combinations are common to the industry, and no entity, comprising but not limited to the plaintiff\/<strong>petitioner<\/strong><sup><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Petitioner\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/sup>, can claim monopoly over the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Findings\"><\/span>Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nissue or problem before the Court was whether the defendants are entitled to\nuse the TOPAZ mark with the Trade Dress and packaging. The Court accepted that while\ngranting ex-parte and interim injunction, the Court only expresses a prima\nfacie; a deep and detailed investigation on merits is not done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\nnoted that the product of the plaintiff has been well-established in the market\nsince the years 2014-15. While going through different pictorial images, the\nCourt noted that while some of the elements of the TOPAZ design is identical to\nTOTAL, come a percentage of the similarities are common to all cigarette brands\nlike health warning. While comparing or including both the products side by\nside, the Judge did notice that some parts of the packaging were similar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, it opined that the provisional impugned order needs no interference by the Court. However, it directed the Court Commissioner to release the earlier seized cigarette sticks of the defendants, given the unpreserved nature of tobacco and allowed them to export the same outside India in fresh packaging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our Article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/procedure-for-drafting-notice-for-trademark-infringement\/\">Procedure for Drafting Notice for Trademark Infringement \u2013 An Overview\n<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dealing with an Intellectual Property Dispute, the Delhi High Court has observed considerably that striking similarities in packing colour, style and font amount to Trademark Infringement. Scroll down to check the Trademark Infringement case between Total vs Topaz. A Brief Facts of the Trademark Infringement Case Between Total vs Topaz Trademark Infringement Case Between Total [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":10295,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[72],"tags":[967],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10289"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10289"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10289\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10303,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10289\/revisions\/10303"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}