Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Merely because the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) certificate is obtained for the film, the same does not restrict the applicant’s right to take action against the film for violation of his rights.”

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word ‘HIRECT’ is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff’s registered mark.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The data can be misused for a variety of purposes including for the purpose of impersonating applicant- HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which will involve infringement of applicant’s registered trade mark and passing off.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive/leading/memorable/essential feature).

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Defendant’s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant’s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark “JHAMPA” on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The adoption of plaintiffs’ trade marks and plaintiffs’ artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by defendants is dishonest.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The trade mark/label mark ‘Girnar’ surpasses the scope of merely encompassing products/services sold or rendered under the said trade mark and the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of plaintiff-Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in its trade mark extended beyond any specific class of goods or services.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Making AI tools available that enable conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without their permission constitutes a violation of their personality rights and such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.