All blue frogs look alike.

Or do they.

trademarks; intangible assets; intellectual property rights

trademarks

This trademark story comes from Mumbai. And Belgaum too.

Generate brands

Frog Company Pvt. Ltd v. Blu Frog Kitchen & Lounge managed to restrain Belgaum based restaurant named “Blu Frog” from infringing on the trademark of their well-known restaurant, “Blue Frog”, located in Mumbai. The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the better known Frog, as its goodwill was concluded to stretch further than the territory of Mumbai and its surrounding areas. The “Blu Frog” trademark was seen as phonetically, structurally and visually identical to the “Blue Frog” mark, i.e. removing the letter “e” does not make it distinctive.

intellectual property

Justice Patel held, “I do not see why the Defendants should be permitted to piggyback the Plaintiff’s success by this illicit use of, what is for all intent and purposes, the Plaintiff’s mark.”

non-distinctive brands

Conclusion:

No Frog should piggyback on the reputation of another. Oh, and unique trademarks have more traction.

trademarks brands