{"id":321947,"date":"2024-05-13T12:00:31","date_gmt":"2024-05-13T06:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=321947"},"modified":"2024-05-17T17:52:10","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T12:22:10","slug":"delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> A suit was filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited (plaintiff), seeking permanent injunction restraining the ‘HRX’\/‘HRX BY HRITHIK ROSHAN’ (defendants) and all those acting for\/on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, dealing with, in any manner footwear, apparel, accessories, and other products using the mark (‘impugned mark’ or ‘defendants’ X mark’) or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark (‘plaintiff’s X mark’). Anish Dayal, J., held that having spent substantially on developing their brand to be distinctive, it cannot be said that the defendants have dishonestly adopted the plaintiff’s ‘X’ device mark, since it would not be of any substantial purpose.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that “It would have been a different situation if both the plaintiff and the defendants were using the ‘X’ device marks purely and simply on their shoes and the packaging without their principal brand names or otherwise listing them as such on online sites without the principal brand names, which is not the case herein. Besides the defendants having been in the market now since 2013 i.e. more than a decade, the balance of convenience also leans in their favour.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The case revolves around a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off concerning two distinctive marks, referred to as the plaintiff’s ‘X’ mark and the defendants’ ‘X’ mark, within the context of footwear products. The plaintiff, a significant player in the Indian footwear industry, asserts its rights over the ‘X’ mark, derived from its ‘SPARX’ logo, which has been extensively used in relation to its footwear products under the ‘SPARX’ brand since 1976. On the other hand, the defendants, associated with the ‘HRX’ brand, have adopted a similar ‘X’ mark for their footwear line.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ adoption of a mark similar to theirs has led to confusion, passing off, and dilution of their trademark. They argued that the defendants’ ‘X’ mark, used as a standalone mark on footwear products, is deceptively similar to their own and causes consumer confusion. The plaintiff presented evidence of their extensive use of the mark, along with substantial investment in marketing and promotion, highlighting their significant market presence and goodwill associated with the mark.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the defendants contested the plaintiff’s claims, asserting their own rights over the ‘X’ mark. They argued that the marketplace is crowded with similar marks and that the plaintiff’s agreement with another party, Soccer International Pvt. Ltd., to co-exist in the market, undermines their claim to exclusivity. The defendants contended that their ‘X’ mark is distinct from the plaintiff’s and has been used in conjunction with their ‘HRX’ brand since 2010, well before the plaintiff’s registration of the mark.<\/p>\n

The Court examined the similarities and differences between the marks, the extent of consumer confusion, the existence of prior agreements, and the conduct of the parties. The Court observed that while there are similarities between the marks, the use of the ‘X’ mark by both parties in conjunction with their principal brand names mitigates the likelihood of confusion among consumers. It also noted the existence of prior agreements and the crowded marketplace for similar marks. In its analysis, the Court applied relevant legal principles and precedents to determine the merits of the case. It considered factors such as consumer perception, market practices, and the conduct of the parties in arriving at its decision.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a permanent injunction concluding that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood of confusion or the defendants’ dishonest adoption of the mark.<\/p>\n

[Relaxo Footwers Limited v. XS Brands Consultancy Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3434<\/a>, decided on 03-05-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Shobhit Agarwal and Mr. Prajjwal Kushwaha, Advocates for plaintiff<\/p>\n

Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Pragya Mishra, Mr. Shaurya Pandey and Mr. Abhinav, Advocates before defendants<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff’s X mark is derived from their ‘SPARX’ logo and has been used in a standalone form in relation to its footwear products sold under the ‘SPARX’ brand. Plaintiff’s grievance is against the defendants who started using defendants’ X mark, which was deceptively similar, for footwear as well, being identical goods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,68596,68594,2943,68595,18071,68593],"class_list":["post-321947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-hrithik-roshan","tag-hrx","tag-injunction","tag-sparx","tag-trademark-infringement","tag-x-marks"],"yoast_head":"\nSPARX v HRX: Delhi HC refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\" \/>\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\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-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=\"2024-05-13T06:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-17T12:22:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\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\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"SPARX v HRX: Delhi HC refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-13T06:30:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-17T12:22:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SPARX v HRX: Delhi HC refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019 | SCC Times","description":"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019","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\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019","og_description":"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-13T06:30:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-17T12:22:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/","name":"SPARX v HRX: Delhi HC refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-05-13T06:30:31+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-17T12:22:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"SPARX v HRX: Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/13\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-against-hrithik-roshan-hrx-for-xmark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan\u2019s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark \u2018X\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":314956,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/22\/nova-v-novya-trademark-dispute-delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-in-favour-of-sterling-agro-industries\/","url_meta":{"origin":321947,"position":0},"title":"[NOVA v NOVYA Trademark Dispute] Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction in favour of Sterling Agro Industries","author":"Arunima","date":"February 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Sterling Agro Industries emerges victorious in the trademark clash between NOVA and NOVYA, as Delhi High Court decrees in their favor, enforcing a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarding litigation costs.","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":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":321947,"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":324136,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/11\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-against-fabindia-emporium-trademark-infringement-fabindia-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321947,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants injunction against Fab India Emporium for trademark infringement of Fab India marks","author":"Arunima","date":"June 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cInvoices issued by the defendant have also been procured which exhibit that they are selling products not only in their store under the name of \u201cFAB INDIA EMPORIUM\u201d but they are also selling their products under the same tradename.\u201d","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":318572,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/28\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-against-everyday-gas-lighter-logo-infringing-eveready-logo-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321947,"position":3},"title":"[Eveready v Everyday] Delhi High Court grants ad interim injunction in favour of Eveready Industries for trademark infringement","author":"Arunima","date":"March 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The case arises from the alleged infringement of Eveready's trademarks by the defendants. Eveready contends that the defendants' use of the mark \"EVERYDAY\" for electric gas lighters is deceptively similar to Eveready's \"EVEREADY\" trademark.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Eveready Industries Injunction","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Eveready-Industries-Injunction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Eveready-Industries-Injunction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Eveready-Industries-Injunction.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Eveready-Industries-Injunction.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306191,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/02\/delhi-hc-grants-permanent-injunction-in-favour-of-dream11-in-a-trade-mark-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321947,"position":4},"title":"[Dream11 v. Dreamz11] Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction in favour of Dream11 in trade mark dispute","author":"Editor","date":"November 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe confusion is exacerbated by the look and feel of the defendants\u2019 website which has, obviously, deliberately and intentionally, been made to copy the plaintiffs\u2019 website.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Dream11 Dreamz11 permanent injunction trade mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Dream11-Dreamz11-permanent-injunction-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Dream11-Dreamz11-permanent-injunction-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Dream11-Dreamz11-permanent-injunction-trade-mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Dream11-Dreamz11-permanent-injunction-trade-mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":305167,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/18\/delhi-high-court-injuncts-deceptive-similarity-logo-japan-patent-office-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321947,"position":5},"title":"Situation like a theft being committed in a police station; Delhi High Court grants injunction against Indian companies to use logo similar to Japan Patent Office","author":"Arunima","date":"October 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This is a case where the Intellectual Property Office of Japan has found itself at the receiving end of infringement and imitation by unscrupulous Defendants. The defendants\u2019 use of the identical mark and logo would be violative of the Plaintiff\u2019s goodwill and brand equity.","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\/2023\/10\/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\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/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\/321947","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\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321947\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}