Page 48 - Insurance Times November 2019

LEGAL

Vehicle Insurance

Over 15 yrs after mishap, HC asks insur- iTerm too descriptive for internet insur-
ance co to give compensation to victims ance policies

Over 15 years after they met with a freak accident followed The Bombay High Court in a noteworthy decision held that
by a bitter legal battle, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High the mark iTerm used by the plaintiff, Aegon Life Insurance
Court has directed United India Insurance Company Lim- Company was not inherently distinctive in relation to the
ited (UIICL) to pay compensation to a family residing in insurance policies it sold over the internet.
Hanuman Nagar. Aegon filed suit against Aviva Life Insurance Company In-
While quashing city-based Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal’s dia for passing off by the use of the term iTerm in relation
to its online insurance policies. The plaintiff submitted that
(MACT) verdict, the HC asked the insurance firm to deposit
it had invented and adopted a unique, distinctive and in-
the entire amount with its registry which would be then
handed over to the injured victims comprising a couple and novative trademark, “iTerm” (and its variants subse-
quently) in 2009, and that the mark iTerm had acquired a
their son.
secondary significance amongst the relevant section of the
On May 17, 2004, Dr Ajay Hardas, wife Neeta and son Ayur trade in online insurance policies.
were travelling in a bus owned by North-West Karnataka The defendant contended that the expression iTerm was
Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) from Belgaum to not distinctive to the plaintiff’s goods and services, as it
Saundatti. The vehicle collided with another bus resulting
was highly descriptive of the product and services that the
in death of four passengers and grievous injuries to the plaintiff provides. The expression is derived from “i” for
rest, including the Hardas family. internet or insurance and “Term” for the nature of the
The judgment was reversed by the Karnataka high court insurance policy.
in an appeal by holding that the other bus owned by The court held that the nature of the services, the class of
Dharwad-based Vijayanand Road Lines (VRL) Limited was purchasers of the policies, and the way in which they
being driven rashly which led to the collision and not the bought or placed orders for the policies outweighed any
NWKRTC bus carrying the claimants. The Karnataka HC slight phonetic or visual similarity between the rival marks.
fastened the liability of compensation on VRL and ULLCL. The court also held that any injunction against the defen-
The Hardas family had also filed individual appeals in MACT dant would result only in severe pecuniary and financial
here for compensation for their injuries. damage to the large number of customers that had pur-
chased the defendant’s insurance policies under the mark
On May 5, 2012, it also ruled on the lines of its Karnataka
counterpart by fixing the responsibility to pay compensa- iTerm.
tion on both bus agencies in equal ratio. This verdict was Ans. of October '19 Insurance Quiz contest
challenged by the Belgaum-based NWKRTC divisional con- 1. SBI General Insurance
troller in HC’s Nagpur bench. 2. Arundhati Bhattacharya
“It’s clear from the Karnataka HC’s verdict, material docu- 3. Rs 1.11 crore
ments and evidence adduced by the claimants in all these 4. LIC
appeals that the bus owned by VRL and insured by UIICL 5. Ola
was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit to 6. Srinagar and Leh
petitioner’s vehicle,” justice Murlidhar Giratkar held. 7. Bajaj Allianz Life

48 The Insurance Times, November 2019