11.07.16
Zebra Technologies announced its ongoing commitment to aggressively protect and enforce its intellectual property rights and to safeguard the interest of partners and end-users from infringement activities.
Zebra filed a complaint in the High Court of Bombay against Babu Becharabhai Van of Mumbai on April 13, 2016 along with a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint alleges Babu is intentionally and willfully infringing Zebra’s trademarks and trading on Zebra’s goodwill and reputation by conducting its entire business in the name of Zebra Technologies and offering the same products, in the same industry, and in the same channel of trade as Zebra.
After reviewing the complaint, which included a side-by-side comparison of Zebra’s marks and Babu’s impugned marks, the Court on April 22, 2016 concluded that there was no distinction whatsoever as far as the two marks, Zebra and Zebra Technologies, are concerned. The Court noted that the design mark used by Babu is a pictorial of a zebra rather than a stylization of a zebra, which is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Based on the material presented, the Court agreed with Zebra that this is a clear case of trademark infringement.
Following the ad-interim injunction, Babu has accepted the ruling of the High Court of Bombay, and agreed to unconditionally apologize to Zebra. Babu further promised not to engage in any activity that violates the intellectual property rights of Zebra.
“This lawsuit comes on the heels of Zebra’s successful anti-counterfeiting program launched in China last year to reduce product infringement activities of its after-market printheads,” said Ryan Goh, VP and GM, Zebra Technologies APAC.
Zebra filed a complaint in the High Court of Bombay against Babu Becharabhai Van of Mumbai on April 13, 2016 along with a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint alleges Babu is intentionally and willfully infringing Zebra’s trademarks and trading on Zebra’s goodwill and reputation by conducting its entire business in the name of Zebra Technologies and offering the same products, in the same industry, and in the same channel of trade as Zebra.
After reviewing the complaint, which included a side-by-side comparison of Zebra’s marks and Babu’s impugned marks, the Court on April 22, 2016 concluded that there was no distinction whatsoever as far as the two marks, Zebra and Zebra Technologies, are concerned. The Court noted that the design mark used by Babu is a pictorial of a zebra rather than a stylization of a zebra, which is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Based on the material presented, the Court agreed with Zebra that this is a clear case of trademark infringement.
Following the ad-interim injunction, Babu has accepted the ruling of the High Court of Bombay, and agreed to unconditionally apologize to Zebra. Babu further promised not to engage in any activity that violates the intellectual property rights of Zebra.
“This lawsuit comes on the heels of Zebra’s successful anti-counterfeiting program launched in China last year to reduce product infringement activities of its after-market printheads,” said Ryan Goh, VP and GM, Zebra Technologies APAC.