{"id":337358,"date":"2024-12-17T12:00:02","date_gmt":"2024-12-17T06:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=337358"},"modified":"2024-12-19T10:50:13","modified_gmt":"2024-12-19T05:20:13","slug":"lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing ‘THINBOOK’ Mark"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by leading Laptop manufacturers in the world, Lenovo (Singapore) under Section 57<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, (‘the Act’) seeking to rectify, cancel and remove the entry relating to the impugned mark ‘THINBOOK’ in Class 9 made in the name of RPD Workstations , from the Register of Trade marks, Abdul Quddhose, J. concluded that Lenovo is exclusive proprietor of THINK Family of Marks, for which, trade mark registrations have already been obtained both in India as well as in Abroad; that Lenovo has acquired distinctiveness for its THINK Family of Marks by its long and continuous usage; and that the mark ‘THINBOOK’ is deceptively and phonetically similar to that of the Lenovo’s THINK Family of Marks. Thus, while allowing the petition under Section 57<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the Court, directed the Trade mark Registry to cancel the impugned mark ‘THINBOOK’ in Class 9 from the Register of Trade marks, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.<\/p>\n

Lenovo claimed that it is the originator, prior adopter, prior user and prior registered proprietor of the THINK Family of Marks including THINKPAD and THINKBOOK for a varied range of goods and services, including those falling under Classes 09, 16, 35 and 42. Lenovo has been using THINK Family of Marks since 1992 for a wide variety of goods and through such use, the said trade marks have been associated exclusively with them. Their THINKPAD and THINKBOOK are entitled to be protected as a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. According to Lenovo, since THINK Family of Marks belongs to them, the public at large is likely to think that the impugned mark is another addition or extension to THINK Family of Marks.<\/p>\n

The Court viewed that as pleaded in this petition, Lenovo has obtained several trade mark registrations under various Classes in respect of their THINK Family of Marks. It also has gained reputation of its own in India and Abroad in respect of their products, viz., Laptops, Notebooks, Ipad, etc., by using THINK Family of Marks. Therefore, certainly, the use of the mark ‘THINBOOK’ by RPD Workstations will cause confusion in the minds of the public as to the origin of the same. The public would certainly think that since the mark ‘THINBOOK’ is phonetically similar to the petitioner’s THINK Family of Marks, the said mark ‘THINBOOK’ also belongs to Lenovo.<\/p>\n

Therefore, on account of causing confusion, the Court said that it cannot allow the mark ‘THINBOOK’ to remain as a registered mark in the Register of Trade marks.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that by misrepresentation, RPD Workstations has been able to convince the Trade mark Registry and obtained registration of its mark ‘THINBOOK’ under Class 9 and the Registrar of Trade marks, also by total non-application of mind to the fact that Lenovo is the registered proprietor of THINK Family of Marks has permitted registration of the mark ‘THINBOOK’ in favour of RPD Workstations.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that Lenovo is exclusive proprietor of THINK Family of Marks, for which, trade mark registrations have already been obtained both in India as well as in Abroad; that Lenovo has acquired distinctiveness for its THINK Family of Marks by its long and continuous usage; and that the mark ‘THINBOOK’ is deceptively and phonetically similar to that of the Lenovo’s THINK Family of Marks.<\/p>\n

Thus, while allowing the petition under Section 57<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the Court directed the Trade mark Registry to cancel the impugned mark ‘THINBOOK’ in Class 9 from the Register of Trade marks, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.<\/p>\n

[Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. RPD Workstations Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 7336<\/a>, decided on 03-12-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

For Petitioner:<\/span> Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy<\/p>\n

For Respondent:<\/span> Mr. S. Janarthanam, SPCGSC<\/p>\n

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

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

Lenovo has satisfied the requirements of Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act for cancelling RPD Workstations trade mark ‘THINBOOK’.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":298865,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[31775,76466,76461,2567,76465,76463,76462,76464,18071,76467,46799],"class_list":["post-337358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-distinctiveness","tag-laptop-trademarks","tag-lenovo","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-rpd-workstations","tag-thinbook","tag-think-family-of-marks","tag-trademark-cancellation","tag-trademark-infringement","tag-trademark-registry","tag-trademarks-act"],"yoast_head":"\nMadras HC orders removal of 'THINBOOK' Mark; Lenovo's THINK Family of Marks Declared Distinctive | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.\" \/>\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\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing 'THINBOOK' Mark\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-12-17T06:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-19T05:20:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-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=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing 'THINBOOK' Mark\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 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\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Madras HC orders removal of 'THINBOOK' Mark; Lenovo's THINK Family of Marks Declared Distinctive | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-12-17T06:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-19T05:20:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"madras high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing ‘THINBOOK’ 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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madras HC orders removal of 'THINBOOK' Mark; Lenovo's THINK Family of Marks Declared Distinctive | SCC Times","description":"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.","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\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing 'THINBOOK' Mark","og_description":"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-12-17T06:30:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-19T05:20:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing 'THINBOOK' Mark","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/","name":"Madras HC orders removal of 'THINBOOK' Mark; Lenovo's THINK Family of Marks Declared Distinctive | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2024-12-17T06:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-19T05:20:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Madras High Court ruled in favor of Lenovo, declaring its THINK family of marks as distinctive and ordered the removal of the infringing 'THINBOOK' mark from the Trade Marks Register, protecting Lenovo's brand reputation.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"madras high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/lenovo-think-family-marks-infringing-thinbook-mark-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ] Lenovo\u2019s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing ‘THINBOOK’ 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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-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":337358,"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":309047,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/12\/madras-high-court-directs-registrar-notify-mark-royal-enfield-register-well-known-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":337358,"position":1},"title":"[Trade mark infringement] Madras High Court directs Registrar to notify the mark \u2018Royal Enfield\u2019 in register of well-known marks","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that in respect of the motorcycle industry, the trade mark \u2018Royal Enfield\u2019 is well-known, not only in India, but also in abroad. Their annual reports also prove that their turnover runs into several hundreds of crores of rupees and they have carved a niche for themselves\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-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\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":231262,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/23\/madras-hc-neither-sunfeast-yippie-noodles-nor-maggi-noodles-can-have-monopoly-over-the-words-magic-and-masala-as-these-words-are-common-to-the-packaged-food-indus\/","url_meta":{"origin":337358,"position":2},"title":"Madras HC | Neither Sunfeast Yippie Noodles nor Maggi Noodles can have monopoly over the words \u201cMagic\u201d and \u201cMasala\u201d as these words are common to the packaged food industry","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 23, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: While deciding the question that whether the expression \u201cMagic Masala\u201d can qualify as a trademark and that whether it is capable of being monopolised, Bench of C. Saravanan, J., held that the words \u201cMagic\u201d and its derivative \u201cMagical\u201d are common to the trade; therefore, neither the plaintiff\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":239681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/26\/ap-hc-extensive-analysis-of-trade-marks-law-can-injunction-be-granted-in-case-a-trade-mark-falls-under-ambit-of-test-of-likelihood-of-confusion-or-deception-read-more-on-trademark-law-and-buye\/","url_meta":{"origin":337358,"position":3},"title":"AP HC | Extensive Analysis of Trade Marks Law: Can injunction be granted in case a trade mark falls under ambit of ‘Test of likelihood of confusion or deception’? Read more on Buyer Confusion","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court:\u00a0R. Raghunandan Rao, J., addressed a matter wherein the law relating to Trade Mark and Passing off was highlighted wherein the trademarks of the parties are similar or identical. Permanent Injunction was sought by the respondent to restrain the appellant from infringing on the trademarks or passing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371945,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/07\/madras-hc-fresh-not-frozen-deceptively-similar-fresh-n-frozen\/","url_meta":{"origin":337358,"position":4},"title":"Madras HC finds “Fresh Not Frozen” deceptively similar to “Fresh N Frozen”; Upholds rejection of trademark application","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 7, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is not what meaning is being assigned by the words chosen by the appellant, but the determining factor is whether it is deceptively similar.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Fresh Not Frozen deceptively similar","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Fresh-Not-Frozen-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Fresh-Not-Frozen-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Fresh-Not-Frozen-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Fresh-Not-Frozen-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296369,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/10\/exception-bonafide-use-of-name-as-trademark-u-s35-will-not-extend-to-name-of-spouse-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":337358,"position":5},"title":"[SANGEETHA v NEW SANGEETHA] Exception of bona fide use of name as trade mark does not extend to the name of spouse: Madras High Court grants permanent injunction","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court has also granted the plaintiff a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from committing passing off of its restaurant business by using deceptively similar trade mark.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-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\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-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\/337358","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\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=337358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337358\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/298865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=337358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=337358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=337358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}