{"id":253563,"date":"2021-09-02T15:00:39","date_gmt":"2021-09-02T09:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=253563"},"modified":"2021-09-10T11:05:04","modified_gmt":"2021-09-10T05:35:04","slug":"trademark-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement.<\/p>\n

Legacy of Rajdhani<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff had originally conceived and adopted the trademark\/label \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 for several products. Plaintiff company was formed in 1983 and carried forward the said business under the trademark\/label\u2019 Rajdhani\u2019.<\/p>\n

Trademarks\/Labels are owned by the plaintiff company and \u2018Rajdhani Flour Mills Limited\u2019 as a sister concern of the plaintiff company vide an agreement.<\/p>\n

Further, it was stated that the plaintiff and Rajdhani Flour Mills have co-existing rights in the trademark\/labels in question.<\/p>\n

It is stated that the plaintiff came into existence in 1983. Therefore, there is no question of the plaintiff using the composite trade mark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 since 1966 as claimed.<\/p>\n

Even if for some reason it was assumed that the plaintiff had been using the trademark since inception, the defendants have been continuously using the trademark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 and its variants since 1965.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Whether plaintiff has any rights to the trade mark RAJDHANI keeping into account the alleged memorandum of family settlement?<\/p>\n

It was claimed that the origin of the trade mark in question RAJDHANI was in 1966, present director of the plaintiff conceived and adopted the trade mark\/label.<\/p>\n

Prima facie, Court opined that the plea of defendants that pursuant to the family settlement, no rights flow to the plaintiff was without merits.<\/p>\n

Adding to the above, Bench stated that the said settlement conferred rights on the trade mark RADHANI in favour of the plaintiff\/ director of the plaintiff. The mark has also been registered in the name of the plaintiff. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff for registration of the assignment of the trade mark in favour of the plaintiff. However, it was not urged before the court that it was mandatory to register the assignment in favour of the plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n

Merely because the defendant\u2019s trademark is not registered would not entitle the plaintiff to any interim injunction. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Neon Laboratories Ltd v. Medical Technologies Ltd., <\/em>(2016) 2 SCC 672<\/a> was relied upon.<\/p>\n

From the above decision of the Supreme Court, what follows is that the \u2018first in the market\u2019 test has always enjoyed pre-eminence.<\/p>\n

\n

The rights of a prior user will normally override those of the subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Prima facie <\/em>the reliance of the defendant on documents to show the date of user of the trademark was misplaced.<\/p>\n

In the light of the documents on record, it is difficult to, at this stage, prima facie<\/em> without leading further evidence to accept the plea of the defendant that it has been using the trademark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 since 1965 as alleged.<\/p>\n

Prima Facie the defendant had failed to show prior user of the trademark in question.<\/p>\n

With regard to alleged delay in approaching the Court, Bench held that delay per se<\/em> may not always be sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff to grant of an interim order.<\/p>\n

Adding to the above, Court stated that prima facie<\/em> in view of the registered Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 31-03-2009 filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff traces its user of the trademark since 1966. The plaintiff had also placed on record invoices starting from the year 2006 pertaining to the said products with the trademark in question.<\/p>\n

Hence, High Court held that prima facie, the plaintiff was the first in the market with the trademark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 and was the registered owner of the said trademark.<\/p>\n

The defendant was using the trademark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 for allied and cognate goods which was identical as that of the trademark of the plaintiff and prima facie<\/em> infringing the rights of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Therefore, an interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants restraining defendants its directors, proprietors, etc. from using in any manner the trademark \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

In view of the above application was disposed of. [Victoria Foods (P) Ltd. v. Rajdhani Masala Co., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4224<\/b><\/a>, decided on 1-09-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the Plaintiff: Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Rohit Gandhi, Manish Singhal, Adish Srivastava and Sukrit Seth, Advs.<\/p>\n

For the Defendants: Kapil Sibal & Chander Lall, Sr. Advs. with Ankur Singhal, Mr.Sajad Sultan and Nancy Roy, Advs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement. Legacy of Rajdhani Plaintiff had originally <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,2943,26444,29785,46897,46898,18071],"class_list":["post-253563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-injunction","tag-interim-order","tag-law","tag-prior-user","tag-rajdhani","tag-trademark-infringement"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Trademark Infringement\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Trademark Infringement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":750,\"commentCount\":1,\"keywords\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"injunction\",\"interim order\",\"law\",\"Prior User\",\"Rajdhani\",\"trademark infringement\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Trademark Infringement\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/02\\\/trademark-infringement\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 | SCC Times","description":"Trademark Infringement","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019","og_description":"Trademark Infringement","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019","datePublished":"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/"},"wordCount":750,"commentCount":1,"keywords":["Delhi High Court","injunction","interim order","law","Prior User","Rajdhani","trademark infringement"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","name":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-09-02T09:30:39+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-10T05:35:04+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Trademark Infringement","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":377529,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/06\/del-hc-capital-as-translation-of-rajdhani-is-trade-mark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":0},"title":"CAPITAL being English translation of registered mark RAJDHANI constitutes trade mark infringement: Delhi HC","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"March 6, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDefendants have copied the trade dresses of the plaintiff in entirety, in which plaintiff has a copyright and the intent behind copying is to trade over the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, which it has built over the years and to misrepresent to the public that their goods have\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CAPITAL as translation of RAJDHANI trademark infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/CAPITAL-as-translation-of-RAJDHANI-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/CAPITAL-as-translation-of-RAJDHANI-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/CAPITAL-as-translation-of-RAJDHANI-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/CAPITAL-as-translation-of-RAJDHANI-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217763,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/07\/del-hc-court-rejects-suit-against-movie-khandani-shafakhana-thinks-it-presents-golden-opportunity-for-sexologists-to-approach-larger-cross-section-of-society\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Court rejects suit against movie “Khandani Shafakhana”, thinks it presents golden opportunity for sexologists to approach larger cross section of society","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. dismissed a suit filed for refraining the makers of the movie Khandani Shafakhana from releasing the said movie on the ground that it infringes the plaintiff's proprietary rights. The plaintiff is an Ayurvedic Sexologist practicing in New Delhi. He claimed that his father, Hakin\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":273586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/13\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-jamshedpur-based-restaurant-social-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-social\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction against Jamshedpur based restaurant SOCIAL 75 for using the registered trademark SOCIAL","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a trademark infringement suit filed by a company namely, Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd. (\u2018plaintiff') running a well-known restaurant, SOCIAL against the offending trademark SOCIAL 75 (\u2018defendant'), Jyoti Singh J. granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, as the impugned trademark is deceptively similar to the registered\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/20\/permanent-injunction-granted-for-infringement-of-trademark-on-satisfaction-of-triple-identity-test\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":3},"title":"Permanent injunction granted for infringement of trademark on satisfaction of \u2018triple identity test\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manmohan, J. decreed a suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of plaintiff \u2019s trademarks. It was an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a registered owner of the trademarks SUMEET and SUMEET TRADITIONAL for their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":253042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/20\/interim-injunction-in-favour-of-dps-society-against-infringement-of-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":4},"title":"Del HC grants interim injunction in favour of DPS Society against Infringement of trademark and crest logo by Delhi Public International School","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing the matter of trademark infringement, opined that, \u201cBesides, considering that parties are in the field of education, deliberate adoption by the Defendants of impugned trade marks and logo that are deceptively similar and\/or identical to the Plaintiff\u2019s registered trade marks\/names and logos\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Screenshot-2021-08-20-at-6.04.50-PM.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":278667,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-american-eagle-against-ektarfa-garments-in-a-trademark-and-copyright-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":253563,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to American Eagle against Ektarfa Garments in a trademark and copyright infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code) in a trademark and copyright infringement suit, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J. Passed an Order granting ex-parte\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253563","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=253563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}