{"id":293404,"date":"2023-05-30T10:00:17","date_gmt":"2023-05-30T04:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=293404"},"modified":"2023-06-07T17:57:33","modified_gmt":"2023-06-07T12:27:33","slug":"karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Karnataka High Court:<\/b> While hearing the instant appeal filed by Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) against the impugned order passed in 2022 whereby which the Trial Court had allowed an application filed by Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd seeking temporary injunction restraining BCPL from infringing the tradename “Blinkhit” by using the offending mark “Blinkit”; the bench of S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.<\/b>*, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Court stated that non-usage of the trademark by the respondent since its registration coupled with the fact that businesses carried out by both the parties is completely different, the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant who would be put to irreparable injury if temporary injunction is passed against them.<\/p>\n

A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent, who claimed that they had been carrying their business by using the mark “Blinkhit” since 2016. In 2021, the appellant, who was previously named Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., sought to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which they started carrying out business under the name “Blinkit”. The respondent claimed that their trademark has been thus infringed.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that mere registration without use is of no consequence stating that the respondents have not actually used or utilised the mark for purpose of carrying their business since it was registered. It was further submitted that the nature business of the appellant and respondent is completely different. It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the visual, conceptual, phonetical difference of the appellant’s mark with that of the respondent’s mark.<\/p>\n

Perusing the facts and contentions presented by the parties, the Court noted that the Trial Court had passed its impugned order on basis of the fact that respondent had obtained its mark “Blinkhit\/iBlinkhit” much earlier than the appellant had started using “Blinkit” mark. The Court agreed with the contention raised by the appellant that mere registration of a mark cannot be construed as document of title.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted the appellant’s contention that respondent has not utilised its trademark registered in 2016 till the date of filing the suit and considered the balance sheets and profit\/loss account statements of the respondent to point out that the respondent was neither carrying out any business using the name “Blinkhit” not generating any income from its usage. The Court further pointed out that the respondents failed to provide any acceptable material in rebuttal of this contention.<\/p>\n

The High Court further pointed out that the material on records clearly show that the nature of business carried out by the appellant and respondent is completely different which is why merely obtaining registration of trademark by respondent to carry out a completely different business, cannot be a ground to grant temporary restraint injunction against the appellant.<\/p>\n

Upon re-appreciation of the facts, the High Court was of the opinion that the Trail Court was in error in allowing the respondent’s application for temporary injunction and the impugned order was arbitrary and contrary to materials placed on record and well-settled legal principles.<\/p>\n

[Blink Commerce Pvt Ltd. v. Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 22<\/a>, decided on 17-04-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice SR Krishna Kumar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

Appellant- Uday Holla, Sr. Counsel, Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. Counsel appearing for Rishi Aneja, Adv;<\/p>\n

Respondent- C.K. Nanda Kumar, Sr. Adv for Govind Raj K. Joisa, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":292820,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[58015,58014,2943,5881,28334,32416,3221],"class_list":["post-293404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-blinkhit","tag-blinkit","tag-injunction","tag-ipr","tag-karnataka-high-court","tag-restraining-order","tag-Trademark"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnataka HC favours Blinkit in Trademark infringement dispute | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.\" \/>\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\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-05-30T04:30:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-07T12:27:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Karnataka HC favours Blinkit in Trademark infringement dispute | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-30T04:30:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-07T12:27:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"karnataka high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka HC favours Blinkit in Trademark infringement dispute | SCC Blog","description":"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.","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\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit","og_description":"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-05-30T04:30:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-07T12:27:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/","name":"Karnataka HC favours Blinkit in Trademark infringement dispute | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-05-30T04:30:17+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-07T12:27:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Karnataka High Court in Blinkit vs Blinkhit trademark infringement dispute, rules in favour of Blinkit and sets aside temporary injunction.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"karnataka high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/30\/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-vs-blinkhit-trademark-dispute-rules-in-favour-set-aside-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6527,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":293404,"position":0},"title":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 10, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of\u00a0 SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim injunction restraining a firm from marketing an edible oil brand on the grounds that the name was similar to an established product. The court said that merely adding\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":293404,"position":1},"title":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 10, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of\u00a0 SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim injunction restraining a firm from marketing an edible oil brand on the grounds that the name was similar to an established product. The court said that merely adding\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Intellectual Property"","block_context":{"text":"Intellectual Property","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/intellectual_property\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6323,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/06\/make-my-trip-india-pvt-ltd-was-granted-interim-injunction-restraining-usage-of-its-trade-mark-and-logo\/","url_meta":{"origin":293404,"position":2},"title":"\u201cMake My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.\u201d was granted interim injunction restraining usage of its Trade mark and logo","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 6, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a huge relief to the \u201cMake my trip (India) Pvt.Ltd\u201d, a pioneer in online travel industry, who had filed the suit against\u00a0 the defendants, who were also providing the services of online traveling and bookings, seeking \u00a0interim injunction\u00a0 to restrain the defendants from using mark \u201cmakyMytours.com\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245849,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/trademark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":293404,"position":3},"title":"[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential \u2018Common man\u2019 is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes","author":"Editor","date":"March 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose of the applications afresh by giving an opportunity to both sides and in accordance with the law. The facts of the case are such that the respondent\/plaintiff in\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":293404,"position":4},"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":277698,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/18\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-to-star-india-pvt-ltd-against-700-rogue-websites-accused-of-illegally-streaming-cinematograph-film-bhuj-the-pride-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":293404,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Star India Pvt. Ltd. against 700 rogue websites accused of illegally streaming cinematograph film \u2018Bhuj: The Pride of India\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"November 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the websites from retransmitting, broadcasting, streaming or in any manner communicating to public the cinematograph film \u2018Bhuj: The Pride of India\u2019, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. granted permanent injunction to Star India Pvt. Ltd.\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293404","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=293404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293404\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/292820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=293404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=293404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=293404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}