Site navigation

In Daimler Benz AG v Hybo Hindustan (Delhi High Court, 1993), the defendant opposed an injunction by…

The Court said the principle of delay in the 'Matador' case "could not, and ought not be applied to a well known mark like" Mercedes, and that the defendant's device on…

Choose your answer

In Daimler Benz AG v Hybo Hindustan (Delhi High Court, 1993), the defendant opposed an injunction by citing delay cases on marks such as 'Doctor' and 'Matador', and honest concurrent use cases such as Amritdhara. How did the Court respond?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

The Court said the principle of delay in the 'Matador' case "could not, and ought not be applied to a well known mark like" Mercedes, and that the defendant's device on underwear boxes could not be considered an "honest concurrent user" of the symbol. The defendant did ask for three weeks to dispose of stock, but the Court said it should bear the loss instead.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic