delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

There is nothing inherently illegal in IIL providing a drop down menu from which prospective sellers, on the Indiamart platform, can select the brand which they intend to sell. If, however, there are not, in place, sufficient checks and balances to prevent counterfeiters from misrepresenting themselves as genuine sellers, the protocol cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

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

“Defendant 1 is a counterfeiter and has dragged plaintiff in the Court for an entirely unnecessary litigation, thus, plaintiff will be entitled to actual costs quantified at Rs. 4,59,520.”

puma rs-x 3d shoe design infringement
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The main grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant 2 has by adopting a trade dress for its BERKINS brand range of shoes which is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s RS-X range of shoes, sought to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.