{"id":307205,"date":"2023-11-16T09:00:13","date_gmt":"2023-11-16T03:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=307205"},"modified":"2023-11-23T18:25:57","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T12:55:57","slug":"dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Delhi High Court:<\/span> Plaintiffs sought interlocutory injunction, restraining Defendant 3 from using the mark <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"173\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, Defendant 4 from using the marks Shrinath Tourist Agency, Shrinath Nandu Travels, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-2.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"119\" height=\"44\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-3.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-3.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"183\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a> and Defendant 5 from using the mark <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-4.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"141\" height=\"64\"\/><\/a>. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">C. Hari Shankar, J.*<\/span> granted an injunction against defendants and all others acting on their behalf from using the words &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; or &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217;, or the marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-5.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-5.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"133\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-6.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-6.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"93\" height=\"42\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-7.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-7.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"124\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a> in any manner whatsoever or any other mark which might be similar to plaintiffs&#8217; registered trade marks SHRINATH, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-8.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-8.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"161\" height=\"58\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-9.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-9.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"113\" height=\"61\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-10.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-10.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"109\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-11.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-11.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>. However, the prayer for injunction against the use of the mark <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-12.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-12.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"141\" height=\"64\"\/><\/a> by Defendant 5 was rejected.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Background<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Plaintiffs were the proprietor of the trade marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-13.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-13.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"161\" height=\"73\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-14.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-14.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"129\" height=\"61\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-15.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-15.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"152\" height=\"72\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-16.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-16.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"170\" height=\"77\"\/><\/a>, and &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217;, registered under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> and were engaged in the business of providing tour and travel services. For 2021- 2022, plaintiffs claimed to have earned Rs. 51,81,18,002 from providing tour and travel services under these marks. The &#8217;SHRINATH&#8217; word mark was adopted by plaintiffs in 1978 and had, since then, been used continuously on a pan-India basis. Plaintiffs were aggrieved by defendants&#8217; use of logos which were deceptively similar to plaintiffs&#8217; registered trade marks and word mark &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217;. Plaintiffs submitted that the defendants&#8217; logos were being used for identical services which were bound to result in confusion in the market.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court opined that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">prima facie<\/span> the marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-17.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-17.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"133\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-18.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-18.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"93\" height=\"42\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-19.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-19.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"124\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a> used by Defendants 3 and 4 infringed plaintiffs&#8217; registered trade marks SHRINATH, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-20.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-20.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"161\" height=\"58\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-21.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-21.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"113\" height=\"61\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-22.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-22.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"109\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-23.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-23.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>. The Court observed that the predominant feature of the impugned marks of Defendant 3 and 4 was the word &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217; or &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217;, which Defendant 3 writes as &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217; and Defendant 4 writes as SHRINATH, and opined that the slight difference in spelling really made no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs held a registration for the word mark &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; per se. The Court also opined that &#8220;infringement had to be examined from the point of view of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, and such a consumer was certainly unlikely to distinguish between the marks of plaintiffs and Defendants 3 and 4, which were otherwise structurally similar, merely because of the slight difference in spelling between &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; and &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shri Ambal &amp; Co.<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/Members\/SearchResult.aspx\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1969) 2 SCC 131<\/a> and opined that the word &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217; used by Defendant 3 was phonetically similar to &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; and the word &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; as used by Defendant 4 was identical to mark used by plaintiffs, and the likelihood of confusion in the market was apparent and insofar as the device marks of defendants were concerned, as the word component of the said marks (SHREENATH\/SHRINATH) was identical\/deceptively similar to the word SHRINATH in respect of which plaintiffs possess a word mark registration, the aspect of likelihood of confusion stood exacerbated.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court thus opined that a <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">prima facie<\/span> case for injuncting Defendants 3 and 4 from using the impugned marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-24.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-24.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"133\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-25.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-25.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"93\" height=\"42\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-26.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-26.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"124\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a> therefore existed. However, the Court opined that the logo <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-27.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-27.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"141\" height=\"64\"\/><\/a> of Defendant 5 did not infringe plaintiffs&#8217; mark or even made out a case of passing off as the predominant feature of the mark of Defendant 5 was the word &#8216;HUMSAFAR&#8217; and there was no similarity whatsoever between &#8216;HUMSAFAR&#8217; and &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217;. The Court observed that no word, which was structurally or phonetically similar to &#8216;HUMSAFAR&#8217; was to be found in any of the registered trade marks of plaintiffs and on an overall impression of the two marks, it could not be said that the impugned mark infringed any of the registered trade marks of plaintiffs.<\/p>\n<p>The Court disposed of the present application in the following terms:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<li>\n<p>There shall be an injunction against defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf from using the words &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; or &#8216;SHREENATH&#8217;, or the marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-28.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-28.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"133\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-29.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-29.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"93\" height=\"42\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-30.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-30.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"124\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a> in any manner whatsoever or any other mark which might be similar to plaintiffs&#8217; registered trade marks SHRINATH, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-31.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-31.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"161\" height=\"58\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-32.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-32.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"113\" height=\"61\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-33.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-33.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"109\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-34.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-34.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"62\"\/><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Defendants 3 and 4 were also directed to remove, from all physical and virtual sites, including social media platforms, the impugned marks <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-35.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-35.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"133\" height=\"48\"\/><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-36.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-36.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"93\" height=\"42\"\/><\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-37.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-37.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"124\" height=\"53\"\/><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The prayer for injunction against the use of the mark <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-38.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/09_shrinath-v.-shreenath-38.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"141\" height=\"64\"\/><\/a> by Defendant 5 was rejected.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Defendants were directed to cease and desist from using the domain names www.ajayshreenathtravellers.com and www.shrinathnandutravels.com.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Shrinath Travel Agency v. Infinity Infoway (P) Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/TOxd0j3z\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2023 SCC OnLine Del 7196<\/a>, decided on 06-11-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the Plaintiffs: Karuna Nundy, Nischal Anand, Tanvi Jain, Aman Preet Singh, Rishika Rishabh, Advocates<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 &nbsp; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1218\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1218\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"trade marks act, 1999\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-296380\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-440x293.jpg 440w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-886x590.jpg 886w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/trade-marks-act-1999-60x40.jpg 60w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;The slight difference in defendants&#8217; spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark &#8216;SHRINATH&#8217; per se.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,3215,53387,62026,4501,62730,62729,62732,62731,2616,35021,48181,53459,45406],"class_list":["post-307205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-infringement","tag-phonetically-similar","tag-restrains","tag-services","tag-shreenath","tag-shrinath","tag-shrinath-travel-agency","tag-tour","tag-Trade_Mark","tag-travel","tag-use","tag-word-mark","tag-words"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Delhi HC restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.\" \/>\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\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-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=\"2023-11-16T03:30:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T12:55:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-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=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 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\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-16T03:30:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T12:55:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency\"}]},{\"@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\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.","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\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency","og_description":"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-11-16T03:30:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T12:55:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-11-16T03:30:13+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T12:55:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Delhi Hight Court restrained use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019, \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; granted injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/dhc-restrains-use-of-words-shrinath-shreenath-for-tour-and-travel-services-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court restrains use of words \u2018SHRINATH\u2019 and \u2018SHREENATH\u2019 in relation to tour and travel services; grants injunction to Shrinath Travel Agency"}]},{"@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\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":307454,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":0},"title":"HIGH COURT NOVEMBER 2023 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on Maternity leave to surrogate mother; 1999 rape &amp; murder case; TN Online Gaming Act; and more","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;High Court Round Up&quot;","block_context":{"text":"High Court Round Up","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/high-court-round-up\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"High Court weekly Roundup-4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/High-Court-weekly-Roundup-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/High-Court-weekly-Roundup-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/High-Court-weekly-Roundup-4.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/High-Court-weekly-Roundup-4.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272767,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/01\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-ex-parte-dominos-dominick-trademark-infringement-suit-deceptive-similarity-cheese-burst-pasta-italiano-balance-of-convinience-restrains-legalupdates-legalres\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Dominick Pizza from using Dominos mark along with its dishes Cheese Burst and Pasta Italiano having deceptive similarity","author":"Editor","date":"September 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a case where Dominos IP Holder LLC, popularly known as Dominos (\u2018plaintiff') was seeking protection of the mark \u2018Domino's Pizza', and the accompanying device mark, logo mark, as also the marks \u2018Cheese Burst' and \u2018Pasta Italiano', its popular dishes as Defendant 1 was using a deceptively\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308100,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/30\/delhi-hc-temporarily-restrains-dialmytrip-from-using-dialmytrip-mark-in-respect-of-travel-related-services-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":2},"title":"[MakeMyTrip v. Dialmytrip] Delhi High Court temporarily restrains Dialmytrip from using \u2018Dialmytrip\u2019 mark\/name in respect of any travel related services","author":"Editor","date":"November 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cBalance of convenience lies in the plaintiff\u2019s favour, considering that it is a well-known company in the travel business who has built its goodwill and reputation throughout the years, if an injunction is not granted it will lead to irreparable loss to the plaintiff.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"MakeMyTrip Dialmytrip restrains deceptively similar","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/MakeMyTrip-Dialmytrip-restrains-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/MakeMyTrip-Dialmytrip-restrains-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/MakeMyTrip-Dialmytrip-restrains-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/MakeMyTrip-Dialmytrip-restrains-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278920,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/01\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-in-favour-of-dream-11-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name \u2018www.dream11.bet\u2019 and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":278074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/26\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-tata-sia-airlines-limited-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-restrains-vistara-media-private-limited-from-using-the-mark-vistara\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Tata Sia Airlines Limited in a trade mark infringement suit; restrains Vistara Media Private Limited from using the mark \u2018VISTARA\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"November 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J. passed an interim order restraining Vistara Media Private Limited from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":285570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/novaegis-phonetically-identical-and-deceptively-similar-to-novartis-delhi-high-court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-in-favour-of-novartis-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":307205,"position":5},"title":"\u2018NOVAEGIS\u2019 is phonetically identical and deceptively similar to \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019; Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction in favour of \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court opined that \u2018NOVAEGIS\u2019 was, phonetically identical to \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019, when tested from the point of view of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and thus, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307205","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\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=307205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307205\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=307205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=307205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=307205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}