Just yesterday we reported that the Delhi High Court had issued an interim injunction on Asus Technologies Pvt Ltd., which prevented the company from selling, offering and advertising any device bearing Zen, ZenFone and any other name related to these terms.
The Taiwanese tech giant has today released an official statement saying that the supply and after-sale service and technical support for its products remain unchanged.
“The Asus legal team is currently working with the Delhi High Court in India to resolve the Zen Mobiles and ZenFone trademark lawsuit. The supply of Asus smartphones, notebooks and other products, as well as technical support and after-sales service for all Asus products remain unchanged for all consumers.”
The court ruling came into effect on May 29, and remains effective for eight weeks until July 24. The update comes under grounds of a copyright infringement appeal made by Telecare Network, which claimed that Asus had infringed upon the former's trademarked brands Zen and Zenmobile. Telecare says that it has been the registered proprietor and beneficiary of the Zen and Zenmobile trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and has been using the brands continuously for selling feature phones, smartphones, tablets and related accessories, since 2008.
Asus argued that its usage of the 'Zen' mark is in line with its chief execute Jonney Shih's philosophical belief, and as such, is a generic term in regards to the followers of Buddhism. It also supplied proof of multiple other brands using various iterations of the 'Zen' trademark, and emphasised that there was no scope of confusion as the name 'Zenfone' was always firmly associated with the Asus brand.
However, the Court's ruling was based on the fact that Asus had only filed for its trademark in 2014, prior to which Telecare Network was already using the trademark 'Zenmobile' -- deemed as a very similar variation of the Zenfone brand. Furthermore, the court stated that Asus' argument of the 'Zen' word being generic in religious principles does not qualify on ground of smartphones, where it can be referred to as a specific entity.
Comments
0 comment