{"id":255767,"date":"2021-10-18T10:00:43","date_gmt":"2021-10-18T04:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=255767"},"modified":"2021-10-18T09:36:21","modified_gmt":"2021-10-18T04:06:21","slug":"presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madras High Court: <\/strong>G. Jayachandran, J., decided a matter with regard to infringing the registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY.<\/p>\n

Present suit was filed for injunction restraining the defendant, men and agent from infringing the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY and its variant.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s company was registered in using the internet as a platform for matrimonial alliance and have been in business since 2001.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff enjoys tremendous goodwill throughout India and abroad. The internet business of the plaintiff started in the year 1997, having its domain name as www.bharatmatrimony.com<\/a>. Plaintiff registered several other domain names based on language and religion to cater for the needs of the regional customer.<\/p>\n

In order to protect the mark and exclusively enjoy the plaintiff registered the domain name www.bharatmatrimony.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Further, it was stated that, in order to take advantage of the reputation and wide acceptance by the public, the defendant herein had adopted the identical mark of the plaintiff for its online business. The said adoption www.bharatmatrimony.org was with intention to ride its goodwill and reputation and was not honest, but with malafide intention to cause deception and confusion to the users in order to gain illicit benefit.<\/p>\n

Adding to the above it was stated that when the plaintiff came to know this unauthorized use and wrongful exploitation the name used for the plaintiff’s trademark by the defendant, notice was served on the defendant to cease and deceit from adopting the mark which was identical that of the plaintiff’s trademark BHARATMATRIMONY.<\/p>\n

Cause of filing the suit<\/span><\/h4>\n

Since the defendant failed to restrain itself from deceptively, illegally adopting the plaintiff\u2019s trademark, the present suit was filed.<\/p>\n

This Court had granted interim injunction being prima facie satisfied about the alleged copyright infringement by respondent\/defendant.<\/p>\n

High Court was satisfied that the user name BHARATMATRIMONY was being used by the plaintiff since 1997 and the domain name www.bharatmatrimony.com<\/a> since 1999 had been dishonestly adopted by the defendant for its domain name, while its trade name is www.siliconinfo.com<\/a>. On serving cease and deceit notice, the defendant did not respond to justify the adoption of the domain name.<\/p>\n

Court expressed that defendant adopted the domain name www.bharatmatrimony.org<\/a> which was squarely prohibited under Section 29 of the Trademark Act as infringement. Under Section 29(3), if the identical mark used for identical service, the Court shall presume the infringement.<\/p>\n

Present matter is a case where the identical mark for identical service is adopted by the defendant and no justification came forward from the defendant, despite affording opportunity.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the present suit was allowed in respect of the injunction relief against infringement.<\/p>\n

Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the following reliefs:<\/p>\n

(a). A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agents, broadcasters, representatives, advertisers, franchisees, licensees and\/or all other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner infringing and\/or enabling others to infringe plaintiff’s registered trademarks BHARATMATRIMONY and\/or its variants by using the identical trademark BHARATMATRIMONY as part of the Domain name or in any other manner whatsoever;<\/p>\n

(b). A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agents, broadcasters, representatives, advertisers, franchisees, licensees and\/or all other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner diverting the plaintiff’s business to themselves by using Google’s search engine in which the plaintiff’s trademark BHARATMATRIONY and domain name BHARATMATRIONY. ORG and\/or its variants, by using as domain name and\/or as meta tags and thereby passing off the business and services of the defendant as that of the plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever;<\/p>\n

(c). A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, themselves, their partners, successors-in-business, servants, agents, representatives, assigns and all other persons claiming under them and through them from using or redirecting to the domain name www.bharatmatrimony.org or any other domain name that is identical and\/or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s domain name www.bharatmatrimony.com in any manner whatsoever;<\/p>\n

(d). The defendant be directed to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all compact discs, master copy, advertising materials, pamphlets, brochures, etc. which bears the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and\/or any other variants which is phonetically and\/or deceptively identical and\/or similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks or in any other form whatsoever.<\/p>\n

[Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Silicon Valley Infomedia (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5463<\/a>, decided on 6-10-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Plaintiff: Mr Arun C. Mohan<\/p>\n

For Defendant: No appearance<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., decided a matter with regard to infringing the registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY. Present suit was filed for <\/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":[47539,2943,29785,2567,18071],"class_list":["post-255767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bharatmatrimony","tag-injunction","tag-law","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-trademark-infringement"],"yoast_head":"\nPresumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act\" \/>\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\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-10-18T04:30:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/madras-high-court1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\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\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/\",\"name\":\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-18T04:30:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony\"}]},{\"@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\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony | SCC Times","description":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act","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\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony","og_description":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-10-18T04:30:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/madras-high-court1.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":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/","name":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-18T04:30:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/presumption-of-infringement-under-s-293-trademarks-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Presumption of infringement under S. 29(3), Trademarks Act: Madras HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Bharatmatrimony"}]},{"@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\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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":269167,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/28\/delhi-high-court-restrains-voltas-care-from-using-voltas-trademark-logo-ex-parte-injunction-granted\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Voltas Care from using VOLTAS trademark\/Logo; Ex-parte injunction granted","author":"Editor","date":"June 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Dinesh Kumar Sharma J. granted an ex parte injunction to Voltas Limited restraining a website from using their registered trademark and logo VOLTAS and block and suspend the website. The present application was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure\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\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":343418,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/10\/delhi-high-court-ramada-trademark-infringement-case-clubramada-restrained-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants \u20b910 Lakh damages in Ramada Trademark infringement case; ClubRamada restrained from using \u2018Ramada\u2019 Mark”","author":"Arunima","date":"March 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs\u2019 RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant\u2019s justification for adopting the mark \u2018RAMADA\u2019 is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.","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\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":326647,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/16\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-favour-jindal-india-limited-infringement-jindal-marks-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Jindal India Limited for infringement of its \u201cJINDAL\u201d marks","author":"Arunima","date":"July 16, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In January and June 2024, the Jindal India Limited discovered that the defendant, Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited, had adopted a similar trademark \"HINDJAL HISAR\" for galvanized and black steel tubes and pipes.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jindal Trademark Case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jindal-Trademark-Case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jindal-Trademark-Case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jindal-Trademark-Case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jindal-Trademark-Case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270256,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/18\/delhi-high-court-refuses-blanket-injunction-against-godaddy-from-registering-snapdeal-trademark-every-infringement-must-be-petitioned-separately\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court refuses blanket injunction against GODADDY from registering SNAPDEAL trademark; Every infringement must be petitioned separately","author":"Editor","date":"July 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Pratibha M Singh, J. rejected to pass a permanent injunction order restraining GODADDY and other Domain Name Registrars (\u2018DNR') from offering any domain name(s) which incorporate SNAPDEAL (\u2018plaintiff's') trademarks amounting to infringement of the registered trademark, passing off and unfair competition. Such a wide order, without identifying\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\/06\/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\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373612,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/24\/del-hc-akasa-air-trademark-infringement-job-scam\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains large-scale job scam involving misuse of “AKASA AIR” trademark; issues directives","author":"Ritu","date":"January 24, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and if the Defendants are not restrained, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"AKASA AIR trademark infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AKASA-AIR-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\/01\/AKASA-AIR-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AKASA-AIR-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AKASA-AIR-trademark-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":345147,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/04\/delhi-high-court-injunction-loreal-trademark-infringement-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":255767,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court grants injunction in favour of L\u2019Oréal against trademark infringement and counterfeiting","author":"Arunima","date":"April 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Defendant 1 is unknown person\/persons, who have fraudulently engaged with different business entities to commit fraud, impersonation and are misleading the general public into believing that they are acting on behalf of the plaintiff.","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\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255767","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=255767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}