What is a Permanent injunction of a trademark? – Trademark Registration

1
What is a Permanent injunction for a trademark?
Trademark Registration
2

• Permanent injunction is granted or denied at the
  discretion of the court after investigation of
  all the facts at the trial.
• This discretion when applied to a court of law
  means discretion guided by law.
• It must be governed by rule and not by humour.
• It must not be arbitrary, vagile and fanciful,
  but legal and regular.

3

• But a permanent injunction at the final hearing
  is a matter of course and of right when the
  plaintiffs right and title and an infringement
  or a passing off is clearly established and there
  are no countervening equities.
• In formulating a final injunction in trademark
  and unfair competition cases the object of the
  court is to eliminate confession and unfair
  dealing.

4

• The injunction should be no broader than is
  necessary to prevent deception and protect
  complainants rights and on the other hand,
  should be broad enough to afford him all the
  protection to which he is entitled.
• A court will not, by way of an injunction,
  undertake to revise a contract with respect to
  the use of a trade name nor will it grant such
  relief to prevent the violation of an agreement
  which is too indefinite.

This principle is of very real importance in
cases of this sort for oftentimes the decrees
finally granted, leave the defendant in position
to continue to harass the plaintiff unfairly or
to continue a practical use of the methods
condemned in the courts opinion.
5

• It happens not infrequently that the relief
  provided for in the opinion is pared down in
  formulating the decree to such an extent as to
  deprive plaintiff of much of the relief to which
  the court, in its opinion, had held him entitled.
• Many unfair competition and trademark cases, the
  trial of which has cost litigants substantial
  sums, have ended in weak, impractical, compromise
  decrees of little practical value as a protection
  of either the plaintiff or the public.

6

• Suit was filed for permanent injunction against
  defendants trademark.
• It is alleged that the marks of the plaintiff and
  the defendant are similar and would cause
  confusion and deception in the minds of the
  public. 
• The defendant contended that the application
  suffered from delay and laches.
• It was held that the product of the defendant is
  under construction and as such there was no delay
  in filing the application.
• Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction
  against defendant.

7
Commercially impracticable No ground to refuse

• The fact that a decree proves commercially
  impracticable from the defendants point of view
  does not mean that plaintiff will be deprived of
  protection.
• In a case involving the use of a personal name on
  confections the second circuit court directed
  that a special explanatory phrase be used by the
  defendant in juxtaposition to the personal name.

8

• On a re-hearing, the defendant asserted that it
  was a physical impossibility to print this phrase
  in the manner provided in the decree on the
  wrappers around the individual pieces of the
  confection.
• The court refused to relieve the defendant of
  this obligation, saying that if, what the
  defendant, asserted was true and the defendant
  could not use the name as directed, then it must
  cease to use the name altogether.

9
Unfair use of trademark on the trademark owners
goods
Where the infringement lies, not in the
simulation of anothers trademark, but in its
improper use, by others than the owner, the
remedy is not to enjoin all use of it, but to
regulate such use so that it will be honest and
truthful. Only in cases of extreme and
continuing fraud an injunction against the use of
the trademark will be issued.
10
Corporate names In respect of corporate names
the same rule applies to the name of firms or
individuals, and an injunction lies to restrain
the simulation and use by one corporation of the
name of a prior corporation which tends to create
confusion and enables the later corporation to
obtain, by reason of the similarity of names, the
business of the prior one. No distinction
between the natural persons and the corporation
in the principle which is to prevent fraud. An
individual who has been doing business under his
own name is not deprived of the right to use his
own name because he brings a partner into his
business, or incorporates
11

Bankruptcy The fact that defendants assets are
in-charge of a trustee in bankruptcy is no ground
for refusing an injunction in a suit for
infringement of a trademark and unfair
competition, consisting of the use of plaintiffs
trademark as a part of defendants corporate
name, since a sale of the property would include
the assets, goodwill and corporate name. So an
injunction restraining further use of a name as
part of the corporate name of a corporation will
not be denied on the ground of hardship, where
the hardship, if any, arose from the acts of the
corporation after expiration of the contracts
authorizing the use of such name.
12

• Discontinuance prior to suit
• Discontinuance of the use of the mark or name
  constituting infringement or unfair competition,
  before commencement of this suit, is not a bar,
  where defendant contests the suit and still
  claims the right to use such mark or name,
• and there are no grounds to believe that
  the discontinuance was in good faith and without
  an intention to resume the wrongful use.
• An injunction may be denied where the
  infringement or unfair competition was
  discontinued in good faith, and there is no
  reason to believe it will be resumed.

13
Defendant guilty of deliberate fraud A
defendant guilty of deliberate and intentional
fraud will be dealt with more strictly than one
who has acted with innocence and good faith.
Drastic relief will be granted in such cases to
prevent the continuing effect of defendants
acts.
A defendant whose business enterprise is based on
an express and deliberate fraud will not find a
court of equity strenuous to preserve all the
rights are might have had if his conducts and
motive had been honest.
14
Plaintiff guilty of fraudulent trade
Where the plaintiffs trade is fraudulent relief
will be denied. It will also be denied where the
defendant has been misled by the plaintiffs
conduct. On the trial of an action, to restrain
the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs
trademark, and from passing off the wine in
question as being the plaintiffs wine, it was
held, that the wine was not the plaintiffs wine,
and that the plaintiff were not estopped by their
conduct from restraining the sale of the wine as
their wine.
15
An injunction and an account of profits were
granted. The defendants appealed. Held, that
the defendants were justified in coming to the
conclusion that the wine was Burgoynes wine, and
that they were so justified by reason of the
conduct of the plaintiffs in the matter, and that
the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief.
The appeal was allowed with costs.