- AI
- Air Pollution
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign filing license
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- Personality rights
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Sarfaesi Act
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Trademark Registration in Foreign
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
- Women Empower
Fluentgrid Limited, Plaintiff, is a Indian company, which has been carrying out its business in India since the year 1998. It is engaged in providing information technology services through Smart Grid Products under its registered trademark, “mpower” and domain name www.fluentgrid.com, along with its website www.nxter.io, which is its cloud solution for energy retailers. The Plaintiff, being proactive in protection of its IP, issued a cease and desist notice against the defendants for using deceptively similar trademark “mPowerFlo” and “damages” on 30th April 2018, which was not complied with, by the defendants and further went on to file an application for registering its impugned Trademark “mPowerFlo” before Trademark registry, to take refuge of legal protection for the illegal acts of trademark infringement and passing off the registered trademarks and brandnames of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sent a last and final notice to the defendant on 18th May 2018, which was again denied by the Defendant. Finally, a suit seeking temporary and permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and payment of damages, was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The Plaintiff was able to establish a prima facie case before the Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to the Plaintiff against Defendants restraining them to use the mark “mPowerFlo” or any other mark that is similar or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark ‘mPower’ vide its order dated 01.06.2018.
Upon finding a strong case in the favour of Plaintiff, the Defendants bowed down to the demands made by the Plaintiff with respect to permanent injunction and sought a compromise in lieu of waiving other reliefs as prayed by the Plaintiff in their plaint such as damages and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff agreed to their proposal and pleaded the court to record the Defendant’s admission of infringing the Plaintiff’s Trademarks.
Thus, the case was decreed in favour of Plaintiff by permanently restraining the Defendants from using the infringing marks vide order dated 16.07.2018. The Plaintiff has been successful in enforcing its IP rights through this case and has put its foot down to demonstrate to others, the consequences of infringing any of its intellectual property rights.
Author: Pratistha Sinha, Associate, at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.