Trademark infringement is the unapproved utilization of a trademark or administration mark (or a significantly comparative imprint) on related merchandise and ventures warning letter.
The success of a claim to stop the infringement relies on whether the respondent’s utilization causes a probability of perplexity in the reasonable prudent consumer.
At the point when an infringement happens, a trademark proprietor (the offended party) may initiate a claim against the accused to avert further utilization of the trademark and seek compensation for unfair use. The success of any case for infringement depends upon the perplexity caused in the consumer due to the similarity in the trademark. The mark need not be indistinguishable to one as of now being used to encroach upon the proprietor’s rights. On the off chance that the proposed mark is comparative enough to the prior mark to chance to confuse the normal buyer, its utilization may comprise infringement if the administrations or merchandise on which the two marks are utilized are identified with one another-that is, they share a similar market. The Corporate Lawyers of Dubai witnessed a case in 2008 wherein judgment was issued by Dubai Court of Cassation under case number 200 of 2008 wherein the trademark was too similar to the one which was registered in several jurisdictions.
The case was registered to strike-off the trademark of the defendant in UAE because the trademark was already issued in another country and in other jurisdictions in the same field of industry. When the plaintiff sought registration in UAE, the application was rejected due to an existent trademark under the same name in UAE. The Court of First Instance rejected the case and was presented before the Appeal Court wherein an expert was appointed and posted his report; the Appeal court conferred the judgment of the lower Court. Subsequently, the case was filed in appeal before the Court of Cassation.
In the Court of First Instance, the Defendant presented a certificate from the Ministry of Economy of the State expressing that the business mark possessed by the Plaintiff was struck off for non-renewal. The defendant objected the acceptance of claim until the result of the Ministry of Economy on the concerned application to register the mark. The Court of First Instance rejected the case. The Appeal Court affirmed the principal case judgment. The Plaintiff – the Appellant filed an appeal in cassation. Before the Court of Cassation, the appellant argued that the judgment issued by other court contravenes the law on the grounds that defendant marks were registered after appellant’s trademark was rejected due to the difference in the name. In addition, the appellant has the right to strike off the mark as it creates confusion.
Court of Cassation in the light of Trademark Law of UAE held that the trademark was a specific name chosen by the appellant to distinguish its products and in order for such trademark to seek protection, it shall be registered before competent authorities. The difference between the two imprints will not be made by the letters or images or pictures or hues contained in the imprint, yet, the general picture that engraved in the brain of customers paying little respect to the components that the mark was created with. The estimation of the distinction between the first mark and the other one involved certainties subject to the watchfulness of the Trial Court. Importantly, the court believed that the components in the brand name used by the defendant did not create a vacuum and was not similar. Hence the appeal was rejected.