Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The defendant was broadcasting on a YouTube Channel, as well as publishing a newspaper in the name of “AAJTAK WATCH”, through the State of Gujarat.
The Calcutta High Court stated that Trademark dilution protects well-known trademarks from losing their appeal when used in connection with diverse and dissimilar products or services.
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.
Delhi High Court observed that the composite mark CHINA BISTRO cannot be said to be lacking in distinctiveness, when seen as a whole, in the absence of any evidence or material to that effect led by Wow Momo Foods Limited.
A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection who has earlier purchased and had the OREO cookie would, when he sees the FAB!O cookie pack, be clearly likely to associate the FAB!O cookie with the OREO cookie that he had earlier enjoyed (ass uming he did). That, by itself, satisfies the test of —initial interest confusion.
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.
The Court observed that Khadi & Village Industries Commission holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed seeking permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off against Ms.
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.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,
While determining whether there is infringement of trademark, one is not required to see dissimilarity, but one is required to see similarity and there is similarity of all words except one word, in the present case.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Colgate Palmolive Company (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark COLGATE,
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking temporary injunction as Polycab India Limited
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Vasundhara Jewelers Private Limited (‘plaintiff’), praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the
Delhi High Court: In a case where Dominos IP Holder LLC, popularly known as Dominos (‘plaintiff’) was seeking protection of the mark
Delhi High Court: In a case where permanent injunction was sought against use of Royal Champs, a Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited product
Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT): The Coram of Justice S.K. Singh (Chairperson) and A.K. Bhargava (Member) while considering the factors