delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The continued use of the impugned mark will affect the purity of the registered trade mark as the same is likely to cause deception and confusion, in terms of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The aspect of likelihood of confusion has to be examined from the perspective of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The marks have to be compared as a whole mark, thus compared, there is no phonetic similarity between NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI.

glucon d and prolyte gluco d
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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
Case BriefsHigh Courts

So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological terms, be distinctive.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court opined that Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd. will not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX ', which was registered in its favour for PVC pipes.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section