Ghadi Surf excel
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court observed that many accounts on YouTube channels and Meta’s social media platforms are using modern day technology to modify the voice, image, likeness etc. of Sadhguru to garner more views and subscribers to piggyback on his name and reputation.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilizing content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.

High Court Weekly Roundup
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.

High Court Weekly Roundup
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.

High Court Weekly Roundup
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.

Ghadi trade mark infringement
Case BriefsDistrict Court

The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court granted injunction in favour of Wonderchef while bearing in mind that free speech cannot be lightly proscribed, and commercial speech formed a part of it.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant’s and respondent’s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.

High Court Weekly Roundup
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The lack of bona fide on the part of the defendant is also demonstrated from the fact that it has adopted an identical colour combination of ‘blue and white’, as used by the plaintiff. Pertinently, most of the measuring tapes of the defendant selling under different marks do not bear the ‘blue and white’ colour combination.

High Court Weekly Roundup
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The claims made by the Manoj Manchu not only have the effect of tarnishing the credibility of Vinay Maheshwari as a respectable member of society but may further encourage the other individuals and media platforms to spread the defamatory content further. It may lead to widespread public dissemination and lasting damage to his image.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present suit seeks a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition arising from the sale of footwear featuring marks that are nearly identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established N Device and 550 marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Yahoo Inc.’s investigation revealed that the defendant was producing a mouth freshener under the name “YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener.” that closely resembled the established trademark “YAHOO!”, leading to allegations of trademark infringement and passing off.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The term “Aashiqui” does not describe the general category of goods or services (films) but instead functions as a distinctive brand identifier for the Aashiqui Franchise.

Jindal Trademark Case
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In January and June 2024, the Jindal India Limited discovered that the defendant, Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited, had adopted a similar trademark “HINDJAL HISAR” for galvanized and black steel tubes and pipes.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court said that the applicant has made out a prima-facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction as prayed for in this application

National Company Law Tribunal
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The NCLT ordered the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding existing shareholders and their shareholding.