"Diverting the Customers" : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspect

 "Diverting the Customers" : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspect

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4 December 2001.

It has been commented in Laxmikant V. Patel v Chetanbhat Shah [2001] GCtR 3088 (SC) thus : - 

"The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that his goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business. Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services which already belongs to someone else it results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury."

"Where there is probability of confusion in business, an injunction will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name innocently."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

 https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 4 December 2001.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.