{"id":353546,"date":"2025-07-16T12:30:23","date_gmt":"2025-07-16T07:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=353546"},"modified":"2025-07-19T09:55:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-19T04:25:23","slug":"rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In a civil writ petition, filed by the petitioner against the removal of the Trade Mark by the respondent from their official record, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J<\/span>., held that the removal of a registered trade mark from official records without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 25(3)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018Act\u2019), and Rule 58 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017<\/a> (\u2018Rules\u2019), was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court quashed the removal, directing the respondents to pass an appropriate fresh order after compliance with the afore-stated provisions.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The petitioner had applied for the registration of the trade mark \u201cLala Ji Diamond Agarbatti\u201d on 25-05-1999. This trade mark was allotted to the petitioner and remained valid until 25-05-2009. Following the expiration of the trade mark\u2019s validity period, the petitioner did not apply for its renewal. Subsequently, the respondent removed the said trade mark from its official records, without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25(3) of the Act<\/a> and Rule 58 of the Rules<\/a>. The petitioner had filed the present petition for the grant of registration or renewal of the trade mark.<\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the petitioner had not placed any valid documents on record to support his contentions. Furthermore, the respondent argued that the trade mark had expired way back in May 2009, and no renewal application had been submitted by the petitioner for more than seven years, thereby justifying the removal of the trade mark from the official record.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Analysis:<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that before removing the trade mark from the official record, the respondents had failed to comply with the mandatory provision contained under Section 25(3) of the Act<\/a> which mandates the Registrar to send a prescribed notice to the registered proprietor before a trade mark\u2019s expiration, detailing the expiry date and renewal conditions.<\/span> Further, as per Rule 58 of the Rules<\/a>, this notice, in Form RG-3, is to be sent not more than six months before expiration, enabling renewal or potential removal if conditions are unmet.<\/p>\n

The Court, after perusing these provisions, concluded that it was mandatory for the respondents to comply with them and the authorities were legally obligated to issue a notice in Form O-3\/RG-3 informing the registered proprietor of the date of expiry and the conditions for renewal. The respondents had not undertaken this essential exercise.<\/p>\n

The Court held that since the respondents had failed to comply with the afore-stated mandatory provision, their action of removing the registered trade mark of the petitioner from the record was not sustainable in the eyes of the law and liable to be set aside.\u00a0The Court further held that the respondents were at liberty to pass an appropriate fresh order, after compliance with the provisions contained under Section 25(3) of the Act<\/a> and Rule 58 of the Rules<\/a>. The Court further held that any fresh order passed by the respondents must be strictly in accordance with law and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also clarified that in case the petitioner applies for renewal of the trade mark before the respondents, the respondents were obligated to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

[Jitendra Goyal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3294<\/a>, decided on 01-07-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

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

For the Petitioner:<\/span> G.D. Bansal with Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, K.K. Pancholi, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Mohit Balwada, Advocate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“A bare perusal of the provision provides that it was mandatory for the respondents to comply with the same before removing the Trade Mark from their register.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":353549,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[45089,2575,85382,85381,85380,36596],"class_list":["post-353546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-intellectual-property-law","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-renewal-of-trademark","tag-rule-58-trademark-rules-2017","tag-trademark-removal","tag-trademarks-act-1999"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj HC: Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory before Trade Mark removal | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.\" \/>\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\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-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=\"2025-07-16T07:00:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-19T04:25:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.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=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\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\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/\",\"name\":\"Raj HC: Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory before Trade Mark removal | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-16T07:00:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-19T04:25:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade marks Act mandatory\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj HC: Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory before Trade Mark removal | SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.","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\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-16T07:00:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-19T04:25:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/","name":"Raj HC: Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory before Trade Mark removal | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp","datePublished":"2025-07-16T07:00:23+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-19T04:25:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed trademark removal holding notice under Section 25(3) of Trade Marks Act mandatory prior removal.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Notice under Section 25(3) of Trade marks Act mandatory"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/16\/rajasthan-hc-notice-under-section-253-of-trade-marks-act-mandatory-before-trade-mark-removal-scc-times-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act: Rajasthan High Court"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Notice-under-Section-253-of-Trade-marks-Act-mandatory.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"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":353546,"position":0},"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":300063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/time-limit-file-counter-statement-notice-of-opposition-run-from-date-e-mail-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":353546,"position":1},"title":"Limitation period to file counter statement to notice of opposition would run from date of receipt of e-mail: Madras High Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to re-consider and decide the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the parties","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":344939,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/02\/dhc-directs-removal-of-mark-purplle-tree-from-register-of-trade-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":353546,"position":2},"title":"Delhi HC grants relief to e-commerce platform \u2018Purplle\u2019; directs removal of mark \u2018Purplle Tree\u2019 from Register of Trade Marks","author":"Arushi","date":"April 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Despite Respondent 1\u2019s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly\/deceptively similar to the petitioner\u2019s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.","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":355782,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/intellectual-property-rights-july-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":353546,"position":3},"title":"IPR July 2025: A quick recap of the Months\u2019 top Intellectual Property Rights cases","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"August 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Covering all the important IPR cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, links to other roundups, latest legal updates in criminal law and a few top stories of the month.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights July 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":378808,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/19\/overlap-between-copyright-and-trademark-tiger-logo-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":353546,"position":4},"title":"Tiger Logo Dispute: Delhi High Court examines how Section 45 proviso of Copyright Act protects original artistic work when marks overlap","author":"Editor","date":"March 19, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court noted that the TIGER logo of Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd had been copied in totality and hence, the registration of the impugned artistic work could not be permitted to continue in the Register of Copyrights","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"overlap between copyright and trademark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/overlap-between-copyright-and-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/overlap-between-copyright-and-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/overlap-between-copyright-and-trademark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/overlap-between-copyright-and-trademark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351542,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/26\/2024-ip-judgments-trademark-patent-copyright\/","url_meta":{"origin":353546,"position":5},"title":"Cases Reported in HCC | Latest High Court Cases on Intellectual Property","author":"Niyati","date":"June 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore latest Cases reported in SCC\u2019s High Court Cases (HCC) shaping Intellectual Property Laws which covers trademark infringement, patentability, passing off, and domain name disputes. A holistic view of evolving jurisprudence on intellectual property laws in India.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 Intellectual Property Judgments","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-2025-06-26T124308.452.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-2025-06-26T124308.452.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-2025-06-26T124308.452.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-2025-06-26T124308.452.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353546","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=353546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353546\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/353549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=353546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=353546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=353546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}