Dominos Dominick Pizza trade mark deceptively similar
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Where the marks in question pertain to food items, or eateries where food items are dispensed and served, a somewhat higher degree of care and caution is expected to be observed.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“With the expansion of the internet, and access to goods and services that may originate from some distant site, a litigant is free to file an infringement, or passing off, suit, before any Court within whose jurisdiction use of the impugned mark takes place.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“To hold that a customer would be confused, because the word ‘XPERT’ forms the second part of the second word of the impugned mark, would be consigning reality to oblivion.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against an interim order ought not to disturb the prima facie findings, but it can substitute its own discretion when it is found that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction in ignorance of settled principles of law.”

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court explained that there is no power vested in the police under Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to seal the factory premises, where the incriminating articles are situated.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court, in a suit for trade mark infringement by a habitual cyber squatter, Namase Patel over Adobe’s marks ‘ADOBE’, ‘PHOTOSHOP’ and ‘SPARK’, granted Rs. 2 Crore as damages to Adobe.

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.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar

competitive exam
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Delhi High Court: While deciding a case in which an appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Senior