Victorinox, the famous Swiss brand known for its knives, luxury watches, apparel and travel gear stood victorious in a legal battle against VICTORIA CROSS who was found guilty of trademark infringement and passing off by the District Court of Tis Hazari (Delhi). Victorinox is the sole supplier of multi-purpose knives to the Swiss Army and is the biggest manufacturer of pocket knives in the world.
The Court was of the prima facie view that Defendant’s VICTORIACROSS is similar to VICTORINOX, and the cross logo bears similarity with the VICTORINOX’s crest logo.
Against the above preliminary finding of the Court, the Defendant extensively argued that there was no similarity between the marks – neither phonetically, nor visually nor structurally. However, the Court affirmed that the logo of cross is a highlighting and outstanding feature which the consumers associate with none other than VICTORINOX.
The Defendant’s mark of VICTORIACROSS along-with cross logo is bound to cause consumer deception and confusion, especially as the marks are used for similar category of goods. The Hon’ble Court further negated the defendant’s claim of honest and concurrent use, dismissing that the intent of the Defendant was ‘not honest’ and further negated the Defendant’s assertion that the use of the Plaintiff’s mark has become common to trade.
The trademark VICTORIA CROSS along-with the cross logo was found to have been adopted and used by the Defendant in bad faith and with a view to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of VICTORINOX SWISS ARMY.
Considering the same, the Hon’ble Court had restrained the Defendant’s from using, propagating displaying in the course of trade or otherwise the trademarks VICTORIA CROSS, and VICTORIACROSS or other formative trademarks or as part of their domain name (including but not limited to Defendant’s domain name- www.victoriacrossworldwide.com) or any other word/mark/logo etc. which is deceptively similar to the trademark VICTORINOX alone and/or in association with the its Cross & Shield device mark thereby infringing the trademark of the Plaintiff.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
