Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that “SCHEZWAN CHUTENY” was a mere descriptive term and therefore, Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. could not be stopped from using the same and the Court further held that if protection was granted to the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, then similar protection should also be granted to ‘Tamarind Chutney' or ‘Tomato Chutney', as they were also combinations of words in “English and Hindi”.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that the marks ‘WhiteHat Jr’ and ‘WhiteHat Sr’ were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘WhiteHat Jr’.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court, in a suit for trade mark infringement by a habitual cyber squatter, Namase Patel over Adobe’s marks ‘ADOBE’, ‘PHOTOSHOP’ and ‘SPARK’, granted Rs. 2 Crore as damages to Adobe.

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Kaushal Pandey†

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name ‘www.dream11.bet’ and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar

competitive exam
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: While deciding a case related to the product and mark ‘ROOH AFZA’, the Single Judge Bench of

Experts CornerMurali Neelakantan

by Murali Neelakantan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 20

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Copyright Act gives a range of rights and privileges to the first owner of copyright without requiring prior registration.”