Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

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

The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH, a subsidiary of ACCELL Group filed a suit against Imperial Cycle Manufacturing Company for seeking permanent injunction restraining them from committing acts of trademark infringement and passing off with respect to the Swiss Bike’s mark ‘RALEIGH’ which was used for bicycles/cycles/bikes.

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Kaushal Pandey†

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.

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and/or passing off the Starbuck’s registered

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a case where Club Factory was involved in the sale of various unauthorized/ counterfeited products, bearing

Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

The permanent injunction passed shall come into effect from 1-11-2022.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Bombay High Court: In a case filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking temporary injunction as Polycab India Limited

competitive exam
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The considerations, while deciding an application for grant of ad-interim injunction could be less stringent than the one for final relief in a suit. Interim decisions are required to be made based on probable rather than a definitive view.

Calcutta High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The trademark “AMUL” symbolizes a movement among Indian Rural Community towards prosperity and Indian public perceives the trademark “AMUL” having association of connection with the plaintiffs and no other. It is a combination of all the foregoing factors that had culminated into the trademark “AMUL” being recognized as well-known trademark and, therefore, deserves a broader scope of protection against unauthorized use on non-competing goods or services.”

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: Amit Bansal, J., observed that the taglines of ‘Red Bull’ and ‘Sting’ are descriptive and laudatory in nature. Interim