Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Considering the widespread promotional and advertisement activities undertaken by the plaintiff, it is apparent that the trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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).

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The trade mark/label mark ‘Girnar’ surpasses the scope of merely encompassing products/services sold or rendered under the said trade mark and the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of plaintiff-Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in its trade mark extended beyond any specific class of goods or services.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

After considering the inventory of the infringing products and the conduct of defendants, the Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff for Rs 50 lakh on account of damages and Rs 2 lakh are awarded as costs.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Global use of shaded ‘N’ logo of New Balance Athletics, Inc., and registration of the logo in India since 1997 along with its enforcement, leaves no doubt that said writing style in respect of footwear is exclusively associated with New Balance.”

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court said that the lids were identical as the design was one and the same and added that the Prestige was in the market of manufacturing pressure cookers for a long time and their trade mark is well known and their turnover was huge

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“once it is concluded that the earlier trade mark is a well-known trade mark, the registration of an identical or similar trade mark is not permitted if the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade mark”