GLAMBIRDS ENTERTAINMENT Vs. GLAM X ENTERTAINMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. APPL. 802/2018

(2.) This petition impugns an order dated 9.11.2017 of the ADJ-01 (North), Rohini Court, Delhi which dismissed the appellant's application under Order 39 Rules 1 &2 CPC seeking an injunction against the respondents from using the mark "GLAM X". The appellant claimed that "GLAM X" was similar to its registered trademark "Glambirds". The reasons for dismissal of the application are that: (i) the trademark is a combination of two well known words, i.e. "Glam" and "Bird" which are generic words over which the plaintiff cannot lay any proprietary claim; these two words "Glam" and "Birds" were neither innovated nor coined by the plaintiff; the word "Glam" is well established and long been used to denote glamour or glamorous. For absolute ownership, by way of coining or innovation, it is necessary in either of the two words which were joined together to make the trademark; (ii) that the use of the said trademark has not been for a long period so as to create an exclusive distinctiveness in favour of the appellant; (iii) nor has the use of the words been over a long period of time exclusively by the appellant only.

(3.) The impugned order referred to a number of other users, of the word "Glam" with another word. It was persuaded by the contention of the respondent/defendant that the word "Glam" was used along with the other generic word as was found on the internet at various websites: