{"id":336810,"date":"2024-12-07T16:00:24","date_gmt":"2024-12-07T10:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=336810"},"modified":"2024-12-13T15:39:54","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T10:09:54","slug":"delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> A petition was filed by Jack Daniels Properties (petitioner) under Section 57<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> seeking removal\/cancellation of the impugned mark “JACK DANEIL’s. Amit Bansal, J., stayed the registration of the impugned mark as there was a prima facie case and balance of convenience against respondent 1 and irreparable harm will be caused to the petitioner if the operation of the impugned mark is not stayed.<\/p>\n

It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts. It is contended that the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” has been consistently and extensively used in India since 1997. The petitioner has also various registrations in respect of the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” in India across various classes. All the registrations are valid and subsisting. Despite the aforesaid, respondent 1 has got the mark “JACK DANIELS” registered under class 05 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis.<\/p>\n

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the registration and adoption of the said mark by respondent 1 is clearly mala fide and an attempt to ride over the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner’s mark. The same is likely to cause confusion and deception among the members of the public as well as cause harm to the reputation of the petitioner. <\/p>\n

The Court noted that there is a prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent 1 that the registration granted in favour of respondent 1 is violative of provision of Section 9(2)(a)<\/a> and Section 11<\/a> of the Trade Mark Act, 1999<\/a>. The balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and irreparable harm will be caused to the petitioner if the operation of the impugned mark is not stayed.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the registration of the impugned mark “JACK DANIELS” granted in favour of respondent 1, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.<\/p>\n

[Jack Daniels Properties v. Manglam Krupa, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8564<\/a>, decided on 04-12-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Ankit Sahni, Ms. Kritika Sahni, Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia and Mr. Mohit Maru, Advocates for petitioner<\/p>\n

Mr. R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC with Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate for R-2<\/p>\n

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

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

It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts.<\/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":[74503,72373,72374,74858,76090,76092,75853,72371,72375,74589,75850,76091,76093],"class_list":["post-336810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-brandprotection","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-intellectualproperty","tag-intellectualpropertyrights","tag-jackdaniels","tag-jackdanielsindia","tag-trademarkcase","tag-trademarkdispute","tag-trademarkinfringement","tag-trademarklaw","tag-trademarkprotection","tag-trademarksact1999","tag-trademarkstay"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark 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\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-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 stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-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=\"2024-12-07T10:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-13T10:09:54+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=\"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999\" \/>\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\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-12-07T10:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-13T10:09:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-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\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi HC stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark 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\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999","og_description":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-12-07T10:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-13T10:09:54+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":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999","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\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-12-07T10:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-13T10:09:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-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\/12\/07\/delhi-high-court-stays-jack-daniels-trademark-registration-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court stays trademark registration of \u2018JACK DANIELS\u2019 being violative of Section 9(2)(a) & Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999"}]},{"@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":305066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/17\/delhi-hc-refuses-to-stay-the-registration-for-the-mark-schezwan-chutney-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court refuses to stay the registration for the mark \u2018SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"October 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis Court is not inclined to stay the impugned trade mark registration for the mark \u2018SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY\u2019. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction of this Court would have to be considered first.\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\/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":[]},{"id":339561,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/dhc-grants-relief-in-favour-of-rapido-in-trade-mark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Identical marks, identical goods\/services and identical target consumers\u2019: Delhi HC grants relief in favour of Rapido in trade mark dispute","author":"Arushi","date":"January 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is clear that the impugned mark has been adopted by Respondent 1 dishonestly to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner under the RAPIDO marks and to associate itself with the petitioner.\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":290595,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/26\/delhi-high-court-stays-use-of-burger-king-mark-in-a-rectification-petition-filed-by-burger-king-co-llc-against-virendra-kumar-gupta-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court stays use of \u2018BURGER KING\u2019 mark in a rectification petition filed by Burger King Co. LLC against a family restaurant","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a rectification petition filed by Burger King Co. LLC against a family restaurant, the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the mark \u2018BURGER KING\u2019 in Class 43 as it was identical to the well-known mark \u2018BURGER KING\u2019 and was likely to deceive public and create confusion.","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":300859,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/delhi-hc-upholds-registration-of-harpic-drainxpert-trade-mark-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":3},"title":"Treating \u2018HARPIC DRAIN XPERT\u2019 similar to \u2018XPERT\u2019 would be stretching the principle of similarity to an unreasonable extent: Delhi High Court upholds registration","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cTo hold that a customer would be confused, because the word \u2018XPERT\u2019 forms the second part of the second word of the impugned mark, would be consigning reality to oblivion.\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\/2023\/05\/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\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336972,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/10\/dhc-upholds-trade-mark-rights-of-ganesh-grains-over-its-ganesh-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds trade mark rights of Ganesh Grains over its \u2018GANESH\u2019 marks; directs cancellation of \u2018GANESH HARA MATAR\u2019 mark","author":"Arushi","date":"December 10, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPetitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark \u2018GANESH\u2019 and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark \u2018GANESH HARA MATAR\u2019 by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.\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":311660,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/18\/marks-removal-for-non-use-requires-clear-unequivocal-evidence-of-abandonment-dhc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":336810,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Mark\u2019s removal for non-use requires clear, unequivocal evidence of abandonment\u2019; Delhi High Court dismisses application for removal of mark \u2018BAOJI\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"January 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSection 47 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 serves to protect the integrity of the trade mark register by ensuring that registered marks that are not actively used in commerce are removed.\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\/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\/336810","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=336810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336810\/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=336810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=336810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=336810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}