{"id":336471,"date":"2024-12-03T13:00:10","date_gmt":"2024-12-03T07:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=336471"},"modified":"2024-12-04T16:46:30","modified_gmt":"2024-12-04T11:16:30","slug":"bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In the present case, plaintiff sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing plaintiffs registered trade mark ‘HIRECT’ and passing of the impugned mark ‘HIRECT’ as that of plaintiffs registered trade mark. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that till final disposal of the present suit, defendants were restrained from infringing the registered device marks in Classes 9 and 35, by use of the impugned domain name\/website ‘www.hirect.in’ and\/or ‘www.hirect.us’ and\/or any other mark and\/or domain name identical and\/or deceptively similar to the registered marks of plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

Plaintiff, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a>, was in collaboration with Westinghouse, Brake & Signal, U.K.D. Plaintiff’s business included but was not limited to electronics, railway transportation, power, telecommunication, steel non-ferrous metals, cement, chemicals, metal finishing, etc., and was also engaged in the business of developing, designing, manufacturing and marketing power semi-conductors, power electronic equipment, and railway transportation equipment.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff was also engaged in the business of developing and\/or selling software in relation to its business. Plaintiff stated that Indian Railways were its primary clients and 85%-90% of the Revenue generated by it was either through the supply of products directly to the Railways or to private parties who in turn supply the product to the Railways.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff coined and adopted the mark HIRECT, around 1961, by a unique combination of its corporate name HInd RECTifiers. Plaintiff also created and adopted a logo \"\"<\/a> using its distinctive ‘HIRECT’ mark for which registration in class 9 was secured under the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Act, 1958 (now the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>) (‘the 1999 Act’). Since 1961, plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark ‘HIRECT’ in classes 9 and 35 and in 1972, plaintiff secured registration for its mark \"\"<\/a> in class 9 of the 1999 Act. In 2014, plaintiff cause slight change in the earlier logo ‘HIRECT’ and adopted a logo \"\"<\/a> , the primary feature of which was ‘HIRECT’. On 30-10-2021, plaintiff filed two trade mark applications for the word mark ‘HIRECT’ in classes 9 and 35, with claim of use since 01-02-1961. On 28-09-2022, the two applications secured registration.<\/p>\n

In July 2021, plaintiff came across Defendant 1’s domain name ‘www.hirect.in’ through which Defendant 1 was advertising, promoting, and offering its recruitment services under its impugned ‘HIRECT’ mark. On 10-07-2021, plaintiff addressed a cease-and-desist notice to Defendant 1. Defendant 1 acknowledged that use of its mark was only since 2020 i.e., 59 years after plaintiff’s use and Defendant 1 falsely claimed that it was unaware of plaintiff’s use of its ‘HIRECT’ mark.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff submitted that defendants had mischievously and deliberately, with an ulterior motive, adopted, and used the impugned mark ‘HIRECT’ only with a view to trade upon and\/or encash on the goodwill, recognition and reputation of plaintiff’s business operated under the well-known mark ‘HIRECT’.<\/p>\n

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

The Court opined that plaintiff had been able to establish that in view of plaintiff’s mark ‘HIRECT’ being identical to defendants mark ‘HIRECT’, the customers being persons of average intelligence and imperfect recollection were even otherwise, likely to believe that defendants’ offending services provided under the impugned mark were in some way associated with and\/or endorsed by plaintiff whereas no such association or endorsement existed.<\/p>\n

The Court rejected defendant’s contention that the rival mark was not identical and\/or deceptively similar and\/or likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public at large.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the prominent and essential portion of both the logos, being the mark ‘HIRECT’, the mark of defendants would prima facie<\/span> infringe upon plaintiff’s prior and well-known mark. The Court also opined that the rival marks were structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and\/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole. The word ‘HIRECT’ was the important, prominent, and essential feature of the registered mark.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that while comparing two marks, the prominent, essential, and distinctive features of the two marks were required to be compared. The Court opined that the impugned mark was identical to plaintiffs’ prior and well-known trade mark ‘HIRECT’. The Court declared that the registered mark of plaintiff ‘HIRECT’ was a well-known mark under the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg)<\/a> of the 1999 Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that as plaintiff’s customers had also been confused between the rival marks, thus, irreparable harm and injury would be inflicted upon plaintiff if the interim relief sought for was not granted. Thus, the Court held that till final disposal of the present suit, defendants, their servants, agents, directors, partners, employees, dealers, distributors, exporters, manufacturers, marketers claiming through defendants be restrained from infringing the registered device marks in Classes 9 and 35, by use of the impugned domain name\/website ‘www.hirect.in’ and\/or ‘www.hirect.us’ and\/or any other mark and\/or domain name identical and\/or deceptively similar to the registered marks of plaintiff. Further the Court restrained defendants from passing off their goods and services as for those of plaintiff using the impugned mark\/name ‘HIRECT’, the impugned domain name\/website ‘www.hirect.in’ and\/or ‘www.hirect.us’ and\/or any other mark and\/or domain name identical and\/or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s mark ‘HIRECT’ and\/or plaintiff’s logo marks and\/or plaintiff’s domain name ‘www.hirect.com’.<\/p>\n

[Hind Rectifiers Ltd. v. Chrome21 India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3648<\/a>, decided on 26-11-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

For the Applicant:<\/span> Rashmin Khandekar, Alhan Kayser and Hitisha Patel i\/b. Avesh Kayser for the Applicant\/Plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"trade<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and\/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word ‘HIRECT’ is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff’s registered mark.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,75907,75908,75909,71616,2616,46158,53309],"class_list":["post-336471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-chrome21-india","tag-hind-rectifiers","tag-hirect","tag-justice-r-i-chagla","tag-Trade_Mark","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-well-known-trade-mark"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declared 'HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\" \/>\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\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-12-03T07:30:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-04T11:16:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-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=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark\" \/>\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=\"5 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\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declared 'HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-12-03T07:30:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-04T11:16:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark\"}]},{\"@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":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declared 'HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","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\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark","og_description":"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-12-03T07:30:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-04T11:16:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/","name":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declared 'HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-12-03T07:30:10+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-04T11:16:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Bombay High Court restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/03\/bomhc-restrains-chrome21-india-from-infringing-hind-rectifierss-mark-hirect\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers\u2019s mark \u2018HIRECT\u2019; declares \u2018HIRECT\u2019 as a well-known trade mark"}]},{"@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\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338384,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":0},"title":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year","author":"Editor","date":"January 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Discover the year's most impactful IPR cases, including landmark decisions on copyright infringements, trademark conflicts, patent disputes, and more, shaping the future of intellectual property law.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 IPR cases","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291234,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/04\/delhi-hc-grants-permanent-injunction-to-volvo-mark-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to the mark \u2018VOLVO’ and awards Rs. 10 lakhs damages and costs","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court observed that \u2018VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.","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\/04\/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\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/03\/bomhc-grants-interim-injunction-in-favour-of-sketchers-in-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":2},"title":"Bombay HC grants interim injunction in favour of Sketchers in trade mark infringement case against Wardrode","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The adoption of plaintiffs\u2019 trade marks and plaintiffs\u2019 artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by defendants is dishonest.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-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\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336231,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-mark-mochi-against-mark-desimochi\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":3},"title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark \u2018MOCHI\u2019 against mark \u2018DESIMOCHI\u2019; declares \u2018MOCHI\u2019 as a well-known mark","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants\u2019 mark contains whole\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-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\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":331321,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/21\/dhc-restrains-bio-logic-and-psychotropics-india-pvt-ltd-from-using-mark-similar-to-amul\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Amul is a well-known mark\u2019; Delhi High Court restrains Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt Ltd from using mark similar to \u2018AMUL\u2019","author":"Arushi","date":"September 21, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark \u2018AMUL\u2019 was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs\u2019.","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":335145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/bomhc-grants-temporary-injunction-to-campa-in-trade-mark-infringement-case-against-jhampa\/","url_meta":{"origin":336471,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to mark \u201cCAMPA\u201d in a trade mark infringement case against \u201cJHAMPA\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Defendant\u2019s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant\u2019s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark \u201cJHAMPA\u201d on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-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\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-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\/336471","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=336471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336471\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=336471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=336471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=336471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}