Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Mere reliance on sales figures, promotional expenditure, or broad assertions of popularity, without cogent documentary substantiation connecting such use exclusively to the mark “ONE FOR ALL”, is insufficient.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Influencer marketing has emerged as a pivotal force in India’s digital landscape reshaping how consumers connect with brands across sectors, from fashion and beauty to food, technology and finance.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The unauthorized use of the “LIV” element in a manner that does not materially differentiate the defendants’ mark from the plaintiffs’ well-established “Liv.52” mark amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The similarity between the conflicting marks ‘IKEA’ and ‘IKEY’ is such that it cannot be mere co-incidence and a case of ignorance.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Mankind Pharma used the mark “MANKIND” since 1986 and holds 78 separate trademark registrations covering a variety of pharmaceutical products. The concern arose when Novakind adopted the name “NOVAKIND” for its pharmaceutical products.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Dream 11 is a fantasy sport league is an online multi-player game where participants draft virtual teams of real players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based on the performance of the players in actual games.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present suit seeks a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition arising from the sale of footwear featuring marks that are nearly identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established N Device and 550 marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Yahoo Inc.’s investigation revealed that the defendant was producing a mouth freshener under the name “YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener.” that closely resembled the established trademark “YAHOO!”, leading to allegations of trademark infringement and passing off.