Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Considering that the movie was conceptualised and crafted metaphorically around a cooking ingredient that is closely related to its product, Ajinomoto Co Inc has claimed that any negative portrayal would be bound to seriously harm its reputation.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and/or passing off the Starbuck’s registered

competitive exam
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of marks, passing off and unfair competition

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Disclaimers do not go to the market and a common man of average intelligence or the average consumer would have no knowledge of any disclaimers present in a trademark registration.”

competitive exam
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Oravel Stays Limited doing business as OYO Rooms (plaintiff) is seeking damages

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file rectification/cancellation petition against registrations of Defendant’s

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: In a Trade mark dispute between digital payments applications “Phone Pe” and “Mobile Pe”, M. Sundar, J has temporarily

Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

The trademark RAJNIGANDHA has been declared as a well-known mark by this Court and is entitled to a high degree of protection. The impugned mark is visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

The permanent injunction passed shall come into effect from 1-11-2022.

Colgate
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Colgate Palmolive Company (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark COLGATE,

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Vasundhara Jewelers Private Limited (‘plaintiff’), praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the