Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The defendant has affixed the plaintiff’s trade mark HAVELI with another word i.e., ‘PUNJABI’ and the word ‘PUNJABI’ has been incorporated in such a small font, that it remains insignificant to the eyes of the viewers misleading the customers into believing that the defendant’s restaurant is associated with the plaintiff.”
The defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were representatives/associates of Zepto and so as to scam them into paying for fake job opportunities with Zepto
In July 2025, Tata Sons (P) Ltd. discovered Defendant 1’s website, ‘https://www.tatapayment.net/’ offering digital payment services while wholly incorporating trade marks, ‘TATA’, ‘TATA PAYMENTS’.
The Defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were associated with Premji Invest so as to scam them into illegal and fraudulent investments.
“The actions of defendant 1 are misleading unsuspecting customers, resulting in them sharing their confidential information and spending their hard-earned money on these infringing platforms. It is evident that defendant 1 are trying to create the impression that their websites, Social Media Groups, are associated with INDmoney”
“This Court while dealing with edible items for human consumption, owes a duty of exercising a greater degree of care, caution as also to apply a more stringent test to avoid any possibility/likelihood of confusion between different edible products amongst the general public.”
“Sonu Nigam Singh’s actions could not be considered innocent, and the misrepresentation caused among members of the general public was not a matter of coincidence and thus his conduct was ex facie dishonest and reeked of mala fide.”
“If the infringement of the trade mark ‘Old Monk Coffee’ is allowed to continue, it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public and the defendant obviously would be able to pass off its product, ‘OLD MIST’ rum, as that of the petitioner i.e., ‘Old Monk’.”
“The plaintiff’s registered trade mark and artistic work is infringed by the defendants, and it is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public, thus, unless ad-interim reliefs are granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, harm, and injury.”
Covering all the important intellectual property rights cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in intellectual property rights and links to other roundups.
“The combination of the two words “RAM” and “BANDHU” is a coined word and arbitrary adaption being totally unconnected with the goods marketed under the trade mark, gives rise to claim for exclusivity.”
The plaintiff averred that the design and the colour scheme appearing on the packaging of the plaintiff’s products are also unique in nature and constitute an artistic work that has been created with great care and precision and exhibiting an originality in creation of the same.
The use of colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow of the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s mark.
“The fact that the customer may on a closer examination of products and enquiries find that the impugned trade marks are not associated with the appellant’s trade marks would not take away from the fact that the impugned marks bear a similarity with the appellants trade mark, which led to the confusion.”
Around December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO that the defendant commenced use of the name METBRANDS and until that time, the defendant was operating and offering goods and services under the name ‘METRENDS’.
The defendant’s contention that the expression “1K PUR” is common to trade or publici juris, was rejected and the Court opined that a party asserting that a word/expression has become common to trade must satisfy the test of extensive, actual, and continuous use of such an expression in the market.
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.
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.
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).
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.