Balance of Convenience Legal Meaning

The balance of convenience helps maintain the status quo until a process. If a defendant can demonstrate that the costs and inconveniences caused by issuing an injunction outweigh the benefits and fairness to the plaintiff, it is unlikely that an injunction will be issued. The issues raised in that dispute depended on the soundness of the patent infringement proceedings and whether the balance between convenience and fairness justified the grant of the interim measure sought. The balance of convenience can also be altered and challenge the principles explained in the statutes. Paragraph 17 of the Trademark Act also clarified that the exclusive right in a trademark applies only to the entire trademark. Therefore, there is no exclusive right of the trademark owner with respect to any part of a trademark. In Sri Tulasi Industries v. Sri Sapthagiri Industries and Ors., the plaintiff was involved in the production and sale of cooking oil and had filed the term “Tasty Gold”. The defendant, which was also active in the same sector, had applied for the mark for the term `Tasty Drops`.

The court ruled in this case that the plaintiff`s business will be affected by the confusion caused by similar product names, and so an injunction was issued against the defendant`s use of the clause. 06 2017. 10 2022 The judgment was about the “convenience of balancing” and whether there would be irreparable loss or harm to the plaintiff, and there was prima facie evidence against the defendant. The convenience balance refers to the relative merits of the parties` case and the calculation of the loss suffered by the parties and whether the parties registered the mark before filing the action. In the Indian context, the balancing of convenience is decided on a case-by-case basis, comparing which party will suffer the most difficulties in the event of trademark infringement and whether the damage caused cannot be repaired for the company concerned. The damage in question may be monetary, influenced or professional, etc. The parties involved must ensure the first appearance of a case and a balance of convenience. Given the balancing of convenience, His Honour dismissed the application for interim relief. The balance of convenience depends on several facets, such as: the type of transaction in which the parties are involved and the product whose trademark has been infringed. If the nature of the business is critical, the court allows the use of trademarks, as in Cutis Biotech Sole v Serum Institute of India Pvt.

Ltd. The product we were talking about here was the distribution of the Covishield vaccine in the state. The plaintiff and the defendant had registered the trademark of the word “Covishield” for a dietary supplement and a vaccine respectively. Common law principles were used to decide the case, mentioning the different uses of the products, the importance of the vaccine in preventing a new Covid-19 infection, the different administration of the products as the vaccine may not be available over-the-counter, etc. Due to the precariousness of the situation, the court ruled that the balance of convenience had shifted to serum institutes to avoid confusion in the common population. Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Tictok Skill Games Private Limited and Others has been ruled by the Delhi Supreme Court regarding the infringement of the plaintiff`s trademark on the word “Baazi” by another gaming company using the word Baazi as part of the poker game`s title as “WinZoBaazi”. The plaintiff argued that the use of the word “baazi” violated the plaintiff`s exclusive right and that, since the services of the gaming applications were similar, it would have led to confusion between the users of the application and the defendant would have unfairly exploited the plaintiff`s right. Although the plaintiff filed the claim three years after constructive knowledge of the defendant`s existence, it was decided to challenge the balancing of opportunity for the plaintiff, since the defendant can continue to operate with the trademark “Winzo”, but the addition of the term “Baazi” will harm the plaintiff`s business.

The aim is to balance the compensation awarded to the plaintiff against the harm inflicted on the defendant. His Honour then considered the question of the balance between convenience. When considering the balancing of convenience, it is necessary to assess the harm caused to the plaintiff in the absence of an injunction and the harm caused to the defendant if an injunction is issued. As part of the review, the court must also consider whether damages are appropriate for the plaintiff to seek an appropriate remedy if his or her rights are safeguarded at the final hearing but no injunction is issued. Conversely, it is compared to whether the defendant and a third party concerned are likely to award adequate compensation to the defendant and to a third party concerned if the injunction subsequently proves to be erroneous, and whether the defendant is likely to suffer irreparable harm.