High Court (India)

August 13, 2019

Delhi High Court Restrains Portal From Using 'Vistara' Brand To Sell Products Since It Poses A Threat To Airport Security


[ By Bobby Anthony ]

Vistara

The Delhi High Court has restrained an aviation related web portal from selling counterfeit ‘Vistara’ branded products since it poses security risks at airports due to its distinctive Tata-SIA airline trademark.

The court stated that the portal sold products bearing not only the 'Vistara' brand but also products of other airlines like Jet Airways, SpiceJet and Air India, which posed a serious security threat.

The portal was also directed to pay Rs 2 lakh to the operator of Vistara Airlines within a month.

Incidentally, the court's order came responding to a plea filed by Tata-SIA Airlines Ltd seeking to restrain the portal from using its trademarks and selling badges, name tags and other accessories, including mugs and baggage tags, bearing the mark 'Vistara', with an identical device mark or logo form.

Tata-SIA Airlines Ltd stated that it learnt about these 'Vistara' branded products being sold on the website of the defendant as well as various other e-commerce portals like Amazon and Snapdeal, sometime in February.

The court ruled that the owner of the portal was not only liable to be permanently banned from using the ‘Vistara' brand or trademark but is also liable to pay costs and damages.

The court stated that use of the ‘Vistara’ trademark, even in respect of unrelated services would create confusion and deception, as it ruled in favour of the Tata-SIA Airlines Ltd, adding that the trademark and brand 'Vistara' is registered in India, Singapore, as well as various other jurisdictions.

The court stated that the sale of merchandise with the names of various airlines not only violated the trademark rights of the respective parties. Doing so also posed a serious threat owing to the fact that unauthorised people may try to seek entry into airports on the basis of counterfeit badges, labels, uniforms and other merchandise which illegally bear trademarks of these airlines.

The court stated that said it would consider if any further action is required to be taken against the web portal by September 12.



Related Post

latest News

  • Relative of the Victim being a related witness cannot be an interested witness: SC

    Supreme Court elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses. It stated that a witness may be called interested only w...

    Read More
  • SC Questions CBI Probe In Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case

    The Supreme Court has expressed its concern about the lack of progress of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe underway for the past 22 yea...

    Read More
  • Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas acted as the India counsel to Mastercard in relation to its proposed investment in Pine Labs

    Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas acted as the India counsel to Mastercard, in relation to its proposed investment in Pine Labs. Pine Labs has two companies i...

    Read More