{"id":339537,"date":"2025-01-22T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2025-01-22T06:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=339537"},"modified":"2025-01-24T09:24:56","modified_gmt":"2025-01-24T03:54:56","slug":"bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> An appeal was filed challenging the order of the District Judge (Commercial Court), which vacated the ad interim injunction previously granted in the appellant’s favor seeking to reinstate the injunction on the grounds that the impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable in law. A division bench of C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ., quashed the impugned order and restored the ad interim order dated 09-10-2020, passed by the Commercial Court.<\/p>\n

The appellant was the registered owner of the trademark INDIA GATE, of which it has been using the mark since 1993 for rice. The respondents also started dealing with rice under the name BHARAT GATE. The appellant filed a suit before Commercial Court seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents using the name BHARAT GATE on grounds of infringement of the appellant’s registered trademark “INDIA GATE” within the meaning of Section 293 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> as well as an attempt by the respondents to pass off its product as the product of the appellant. The plaint was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> seeking interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark BHARAT GATE for rice or any allied or cognate products.<\/p>\n

On 9-10-2020, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, restraining the respondents from using the trademark BHARAT GATE in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court has vacated the ad interim injunction granted 9-10-2020 and has dismissed the Order XXXIX application filed by the appellant. The Commercial Court held that there is no phonetic similarity between BHARAT GATE and “INDIA GATE” and the two marks are distinct in packaging, colour and design with blue and green colours predominating the appellant’s mark and red predominating the respondent’s mark, which had a different design, there was no chance or likelihood of confusion. Thus, the Commercial Court vacated the ad interim injunction granted by the predecessor and dismissed the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the deceptive similarity between the INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE marks, as is likely to result in confusion or a presumption of association between the marks, is starkly apparent. Thus, the mark BHARAT GATE clearly infringes the mark INDIA GATE. Both are used for the same goods. They are phonetically similar. “Bharat” and “India” convey the same idea, and both are used for rice. The triple identity test, too, therefore, stands satisfied.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that when one compares, visually, the appellant’s INDIA GATE and respondent’s BHARAT GATE marks, as used on their respective packs, it is apparent that the respondent has, besides using a word mark which is phonetically similar and representing the same idea as the appellant’s mark, also copied the essential features of the appellant’s mark.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that “I am, quite frankly, unable to appreciate how the learned Commercial Court could hold that, in the respondent’s mark, seen by the eye, the Taj Mahal was prominent, and that the India Gate is visible only when the viewer views the package “with great care and concentration”. It appears that the learned Commercial Court might have been referring to some other mark, as, in the respondent’s mark, it is the image of the Taj Mahal, if anything, which is disproportionately small as compared to the India Gate, which occupies the entire foreground.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court concluded that Commercial Court has proceeded on the following premises which are erroneous, both in fact and in law:<\/p>\n

(i) that there is no phonetic similarity between INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE,<\/p>\n

(ii) that the fact that there are differences in colour and design between the appellant’s and respondent’s marks mitigates the possibility of confusion,<\/p>\n

(iii) that the appellant could not seek injunction as (a) the appellant could not claim exclusivity over the word “India”, and it was open to anyone to use the said word, or its synonyms including “Bharat”, for any goods, and (b) the word “Gate” was publici juris,<\/p>\n

(iv) that the image of the India Gate was not prominently visible on the image of the BHARAT GATE mark as printed on the respondent’s packs, and<\/p>\n

(v) that the appellant’s and respondent’s products were so differently priced as to render their customer segments different, thereby mitigating any likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the respondent had, with clear intent to capitalize on the appellant’s goodwill, adopted a mark which is transparently and deceptively like the registered trade mark of the appellant. Resultantly, the impugned order, dated 09-01- 2024, passed by the Commercial Court was quashed and set aside and the ad interim order dated 09-10-2020, passed by the Commercial Court, stands restored.<\/p>\n

[KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 198<\/a>, decided on 15-01-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. SK Bansal, Mr. Deepak Shrivastava and Mr. Vijay C Rathi, Advocates for appellants<\/p>\n

None for respondents<\/p>\n

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

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

The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant’s and respondent’s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.<\/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":[77772,36595,2543,77774,77773,2943,24984,46158,42104],"class_list":["post-339537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bharat-gate-rice","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-design-similarity","tag-india-gate-rice","tag-injunction","tag-phonetic-similarity","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-trade-marks-act"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC restores injunction as BHARAT GATE found to be deceptively similar to INDIA GATE| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.\" \/>\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\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-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=\"2025-01-22T06:30:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-24T03:54:56+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=\"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction\" \/>\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=\"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\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC restores injunction as BHARAT GATE found to be deceptively similar to INDIA GATE| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-22T06:30:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-24T03:54:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-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\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction\"}]},{\"@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 restores injunction as BHARAT GATE found to be deceptively similar to INDIA GATE| SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.","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\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction","og_description":"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-22T06:30:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-24T03:54:56+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":"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC restores injunction as BHARAT GATE found to be deceptively similar to INDIA GATE| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-22T06:30:48+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-24T03:54:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court quashed a Commercial Court order and restored an injunction against the use of the trademark BHARAT GATE, finding it deceptively similar to the INDIA GATE trademark for rice.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-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\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction"}]},{"@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":280659,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/29\/delhi-high-court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-to-new-bharat-overseas-for-its-mark-taj-mahal-in-a-trademark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark \u2018TAJ MAHAL\u2019 in a trademark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark \u2018TAJ MAHAL\u2019 and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark \u2018TAJ MAHAL\u2019 or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or\u2026","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\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":274022,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/20\/delhi-high-court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-carlsberg\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction against Tensberg having phonetic similarity with Carlsberg","author":"Editor","date":"September 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The advertisements on the Facebook page and YouTube channel alone, in my prima facie opinion, cannot be sufficient to deny the plaintiff its statutory rights as a registered proprietor of the mark.","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\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-Tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-Carlsberg-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-Tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-Carlsberg-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-Tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-Carlsberg-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-Tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-Carlsberg-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-against-Tensberg-having-phonetic-similarity-with-Carlsberg-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/novaegis-phonetically-identical-and-deceptively-similar-to-novartis-delhi-high-court-grants-ad-interim-injunction-in-favour-of-novartis-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":2},"title":"\u2018NOVAEGIS\u2019 is phonetically identical and deceptively similar to \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019; Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction in favour of \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court opined that \u2018NOVAEGIS\u2019 was, phonetically identical to \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019, when tested from the point of view of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and thus, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of \u2018NOVARTIS\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "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\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232874,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/27\/delhi-high-court-rejects-trademark-injunction-sought-by-pharmaceutical-company-creating-typhoid-vaccines\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court rejects trademark injunction sought by pharmaceutical company creating Typhoid vaccines \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"July 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao J. rejected an application for permanent injunction by a pharmaceutical company against a rival brand, seeking an order to restraint it from infringing its registered trade mark. The plaintiff had trademarked the terms \u2018TCV\u2019 and \u2018Typbar-TCV\u2019 in 2012 in relation to a revolutionary Typhoid\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":272767,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/01\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-ex-parte-dominos-dominick-trademark-infringement-suit-deceptive-similarity-cheese-burst-pasta-italiano-balance-of-convinience-restrains-legalupdates-legalres\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Dominick Pizza from using Dominos mark along with its dishes Cheese Burst and Pasta Italiano having deceptive similarity","author":"Editor","date":"September 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a case where Dominos IP Holder LLC, popularly known as Dominos (\u2018plaintiff') was seeking protection of the mark \u2018Domino's Pizza', and the accompanying device mark, logo mark, as also the marks \u2018Cheese Burst' and \u2018Pasta Italiano', its popular dishes as Defendant 1 was using a deceptively\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "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\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-33-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297748,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/tis-hazari-court-vacates-interim-injunction-against-home-needs-use-of-mark-polo-lifetime\/","url_meta":{"origin":339537,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Polo\/Ralph Lauren Co. failed to establish prima facie infringement\u2019; Tis Hazari Court vacates interim injunction against Home Needs for use of mark \u2018POLO Lifetime\u2019","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMarks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant's mark uses suffix \u2018LIFETIME\u2019 which is predominant whereas plaintiff's mark uses suffix \u2018Ralph Lauren\u2019 and \u2018picture of polo player\u2019.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"tis hazari court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/tis-hazari-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\/339537","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=339537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339537\/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=339537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=339537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=339537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}