delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“There is every likelihood of defendant’s cloud kitchen services being perceived as another extension of plaintiff’s services owing to the nature of the ‘SOCIAL’ series of marks used by plaintiff.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Viewed from the perspective of initial impression conveyed by defendant’s mark on the mind of consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, if a court crosses such consumer’s mind as to whether market is not the same as, or associated with, the mark of plaintiff, which is seen earlier in point of time, “likelihood of confusion” and “likelihood of association”, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 necessarily exists.”

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 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

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 suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar

VISTARA
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Tata Sia Airlines (‘plaintiff') seeking decree of permanent injunction against company selling

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., expressed that, the word ‘SHOLAY’, is the title of an iconic film, and consequently, as

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In a matter wherein Starbucks trademark ‘frappuccino’ was being infringed, Jyoti Singh, J., while observing that, FRAPPUCCINO trademarks have

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., is considering a very interesting case where the dispute between the parties is regarding the ownership

Case Briefs

Patiala House Courts: Preeti Parewa, SCJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, while addressing the alleged case of sexual harassment against the CEO of ScoopWhoop, wherein it

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: While addressing a trademark dispute between Rooh Afza and Dil Afza manufacturers, Asha Menon, J., expressed that, buying a

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar and C.V Bhadang, JJ., upheld the order of the District Court refusing to

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Achal Gupta†

Case BriefsHigh Courts

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

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arun Monga, J. allowed the petition where the petitioner prayed that the respondents must blur the name