Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Notwithstanding the abolition of IPAB and the power of rectification reverting to the High Court, a Trial Judge would have to stay in its hands once it is apprised of pendency of a rectification.

IP Roundup
Legal RoundUp

Update yourself with all the latest Intellectual Property updates in April 2024.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Even after the termination of their contractual relationship and the explicit withdrawal of rights to use the plaintiff’s trademarks and logos, defendants have unauthorisedly continued use of their deceptively similar marks.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“What is striking, in this case, is that Respondent 1 has produced no document whatsoever which would prove their use since 1957, as claimed.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

To render an impression of authenticity, Defendant 1 is also circulating a forged Guarantee Agreement that mentions plaintiffs’ trade marks, trade name, registered address, Corporate Identity Number, and signatures of their founder.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Defendant earlier using the mark “Ashirvad by Aliaxis” and adopting “ARTISTRY” only after plaintiff’s “ARTIZE” mark gained repute, prima facie, shows that there is a conscious attempt to ride on plaintiff’s reputation.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

After considering the inventory of the infringing products and the conduct of defendants, the Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff for Rs 50 lakh on account of damages and Rs 2 lakh are awarded as costs.

Wow Punjabi mark and Wow! Momo mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Plaintiff, Wow Momo made out prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present case is a classic example of typo-squatting, which relies on mistakes or typos made by internet users at the time of entering a website address/URL on the web browser and is bound to create confusion in the minds of the consumers.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Respondents are operating in the same industry of food and beverages and running cafes, and simply prefixing the word ‘BE’ is obviously causing deceptive similarity with petitioner’s registered mark having a prior user.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 are perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with plaintiff, resulting in grave financial losses to the public.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendant’s mark ‘RALLEYZ’ is constituted in such a manner so as to phonetically sit remarkably close, if not together, and squeezed with, plaintiffs’ mark ‘RALEIGH’. It is clearly in the core zone of deceptive similarity, likely to cause confusion and likely to have an association with plaintiff’s mark.”

HERO mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The findings of the reports of the Local Commissioners also clearly indicate that defendants are actively involved in the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of counterfeit HERO Oil, thereby infringing upon plaintiffs’ registered HERO marks.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The risk of having others bona fide using ‘JINDAL’ as a name for their products, and in the marks used on their products, is a risk that plaintiff consciously took, when it obtained registration of the mark ‘JINDAL’.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“If ‘JAVA’ is being used by defendants in a way that capitalizes on its trade mark value established by plaintiff, and not merely in reference to the programming language, then it constitutes infringement.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Registration of identical trade mark, specifically targeting the same class of goods raises a significant concern for potential confusion and deception among the public.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendant is free to use the two proposed marks, i.e., and , so long as the said marks are used in a manner where the words ‘MY’ or ‘मेरी’ are of the same font, colour and size as the word ‘RAASHEE’.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The differences showed that extraordinary effort has been put by defendant in identifying differences and the broad similarities are so obvious at the first look that the differences are nudged into oblivion.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Section 47 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 serves to protect the integrity of the trade mark register by ensuring that registered marks that are not actively used in commerce are removed.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Refusal of injunction will be contrary to public interest, as there will be likelihood of confusion, in the public, between the products of defendants and plaintiffs because of similarity of the marks used by them.”