A new legal battle, in the convenience store chain, 24Seven has filed a case of trademark violation against Godfrey Phillips India (GPI), in the Delhi High Court. The contention in this case is that GPI has used the "24Seven" trademark without any authority. The company is one of the leading tobacco and consumer goods companies.The Allegations 24Seven says that it registered the exclusive trademark rights in the "24Seven" name by using it on its convenience chain. The convenience stores 24/7 sell, inter alia, hundreds of products and services within its stores, which the plaintiff says that GPI deliberately and directly violates its Intellectual Property Rights when it proceeds to use the same, or a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff further submits that the use of the trademark by GPI would cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of the brand. 24Seven submits that it has acquired a reputation and goodwill in the market over time, and the unauthorized use of the mark is harmful to its business interests. Godfrey Phillips India's Stand GPI will plead on the basis of its previous business activities and any previous claims over the usage of similar trademarks. Industry analysts say that GPI would plead on the grounds that the trademark "24Seven" is not exclusive or the distinctiveness of the trademark is in question. Legal Issues Involved Whether or not the acts by GPI constitutes an unauthorized use of a registered trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999. Whether, on account of use by GPI of the mark there is likely to result confusion among customers as to origin of products or services Whether the brand value and goodwill of 24Seven are being negatively affected Court Proceedings and potential outcome The Delhi High Court admits the case and issues notice to parties. The judgment pronounced in this case may, perhaps clarify important aspects about the law of trademarks related to coexistence of alike marks within different industries or market segments. For businesses, it stands out as a reminder to protect their own intellectual property, including their trademark, and not to appropriate other people's trademark. For the consumers, the case might clarify brand recognition and eliminate confusion. Ultimately, this decision will have far-reaching implications as it plays out in this battle of two goliaths and has an impact for the larger trademark laws of India.