Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court said that the non-appearance of the defendants evidenced their unwillingness to participate in the forensic examination and verification of their claims of the dead insect made in the social media posts.

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

Delhi High Court: Pratibha M Singh, J. issued directions to the registrar of domain names whose offices are situated outside India and

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Federal Court of Ontario (Canada): In an Intellectual Property battle the Bench of Alan S. Diner,  J., had granted major win to

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. partly allowed an appeal filed against the