{"id":370620,"date":"2025-12-23T12:30:32","date_gmt":"2025-12-23T07:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=370620"},"modified":"2025-12-25T13:14:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-25T07:44:11","slug":"bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"“CEFDON” is deceptively similar to “CEDON”; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/p>\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a suit seeking reliefs for infringement of trade mark coupled with passing off for mark ‘CEDON,’ a Single-Judge bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., permanently restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the mark “CEFDON” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Court further directed each defendant to pay ₹5 lakhs as costs to the plaintiff within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking reliefs for infringement of trade mark coupled with passing off.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff is a pharmaceutical company and the registered proprietor of the trade mark “CEDON.” The plaintiff’s case is that it coined and adopted the mark “CEDON” in the year 2004 and has, since then, continuously and extensively used the said mark in relation to its dry cough syrup across India. By reason of long, uninterrupted, and exclusive use, the mark “CEDON” had acquired distinctiveness and had become exclusively associated with the plaintiff’s medicinal preparations.<\/p>\n

In August 2014, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant 1 was using the mark “CEFDON” in respect of an antibacterial dry syrup used for treating cough. A cease and desist notice dated 18-08-2014 was issued, asserting that the impugned mark was almost identical and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark. While the manufacturer agreed to discontinue manufacture, Defendant 1 persisted in using the impugned mark.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, on 18-11-2014, the plaintiff came across the impugned product bearing the mark “CEFDON” being sold in the market at Warangal, Telangana. Upon inspection, it was found that the product was being manufactured by Defendant 2 and was in respect of identical goods.<\/p>\n

Despite service of writ of summons, the defendants failed to file a written statement. The suit was therefore transferred to the list of undefended suits. An earlier order dated 27-01-2015 granting ad interim relief in favour of the plaintiff had attained finality.<\/p>\n

The Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, held that the plaintiff had clearly established its statutory and common law rights in the trade mark “CEDON”. The Court noted that the plaintiff was the prior user of the mark and that the evidence demonstrated continuous, extensive, and exclusive use over several years.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that there could be no manner of doubt that the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” had been entirely subsumed in the impugned mark “CEFDON”. The Court held there was both visual and phonetic similarity between the two marks and that they were deceptively similar, giving rise to a clear likelihood of confusion and deception.<\/p>\n

Given that the goods in question were pharmaceutical preparations, the Court emphasised that a stricter approach was warranted, as confusion in medicinal products could have serious consequences. The Court held that the defendants’ failure to contest the proceedings, despite service, further credence to the plaintiff’s case that the adoption of the impugned mark was dishonest and actuated by bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff and permanently restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the impugned mark “CEFDON” in relation to their pharmaceutical products.<\/p>\n

Invoking Section 35<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (CPC), the Court awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 5 lakhs each against the defendants, payable within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum.<\/p>\n

[Blue Cross Laboratories (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. RB Remedies (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5264<\/a>, Decided on 16-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Vinod Bhagat a\/w Ms. Twisha Singh i\/b Mr. Vinod A. Bhagat, Counsel for the Plaintiff<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Defendants shall each pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs as costs to the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks from today.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":370629,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,95472,39498,70153,95473,36595,67868,14722,95471,24984,46897,95474,46158],"class_list":["post-370620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-cedon-vs-cefdon","tag-commercial-courts-act-2015","tag-commercial-ip-suit","tag-costs-in-commercial-suits","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-justice-arif-s-doctor","tag-passing-off","tag-pharmaceutical-trade-marks","tag-phonetic-similarity","tag-prior-user","tag-section-35-cpc","tag-trade-mark-infringement"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC grants injunction against "CEFDON" for infringement of "CEDON" Trade Mark | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that "CEFDON" is deceptively similar to "CEDON" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.\" \/>\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\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\""CEFDON" is deceptively similar to "CEDON"; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that "CEFDON" is deceptively similar to "CEDON" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-12-23T07:00:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-25T07:44:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.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=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\""CEFDON" is deceptively similar to "CEDON"; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\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\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC grants injunction against \\\"CEFDON\\\" for infringement of \\\"CEDON\\\" Trade Mark | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-23T07:00:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-25T07:44:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that \\\"CEFDON\\\" is deceptively similar to \\\"CEDON\\\" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"CEDON Trade Mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“CEFDON” is deceptively similar to “CEDON”; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs\"}]},{\"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC grants injunction against \"CEFDON\" for infringement of \"CEDON\" Trade Mark | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that \"CEFDON\" is deceptively similar to \"CEDON\" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.","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\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\"CEFDON\" is deceptively similar to \"CEDON\"; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that \"CEFDON\" is deceptively similar to \"CEDON\" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-12-23T07:00:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-25T07:44:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\"CEFDON\" is deceptively similar to \"CEDON\"; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","name":"Bom HC grants injunction against \"CEFDON\" for infringement of \"CEDON\" Trade Mark | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp","datePublished":"2025-12-23T07:00:32+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-25T07:44:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that \"CEFDON\" is deceptively similar to \"CEDON\" Trade Mark and issued Permanent Injunction and imposed \u20b95 Lakh Costs.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"CEDON Trade Mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“CEFDON” is deceptively similar to “CEDON”; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs"}]},{"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":55741,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/12\/claim-for-grant-of-injunctive-relief-in-case-of-infringement-of-registered-trademark-copyright-of-reliance-industries-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":0},"title":"Claim for grant of injunctive reliefs in case of infringement of registered trademark & copyright of Reliance Industries, rejected","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 12, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: \u00a0Providing major relief to the defendants in the case of infringement of registered trade mark and\/or copyright as also passing-off, the Court held that there no similarity found upon the rival logos and also the rival logos are found to be absolutely different and\/or distinct and\/or dissimilar.\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\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373865,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/28\/bombay-hc-protects-trackon-trade-mark-from-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":1},"title":"Bombay High Court protects TRACKON courier service trade mark from infringement","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 28, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhere a word constitutes a prominent and essential part of a registered composite\/label mark, the unauthorised use of that word would amount to infringement within the meaning of Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"TRACKON trade mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TRACKON-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TRACKON-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TRACKON-trade-mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TRACKON-trade-mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":367559,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/24\/bom-hc-upholds-interim-relief-asian-paints-trademark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":2},"title":"Bombay High Court upholds interim relief to Asian Paints in trade mark dispute, finds rival marks confusingly similar","author":"Editor","date":"November 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis Court came to a prima facie finding of overall deceptive similarity in the rival marks and that the impugned marks and the artwork adopted by the defendant is deceptively and confusingly similar to that of the Asian Paint Ltd.\u2019s mark.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Asian Paints trade mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280279,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/23\/rooh-afza-v-dil-afza-delhi-high-court-restrains-sadar-laboratories-from-manufacturing-or-selling-products-containing-trademark-dil-afza-till-final-disposal\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":3},"title":"[Rooh Afza v Dil Afza] Delhi High Court restrains Sadar Laboratories from manufacturing or selling products containing trademark \u2018DIL AFZA\u2019 till final disposal","author":"Editor","date":"December 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects - visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning - may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of\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":272153,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/24\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-royal-champ-compensates-damages-royal-stag-copyright-trademark-infrigement\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court injuncts Royal Champ from using Royal Stag\/ Seagram marks; Similar label also amounts to copyright infringement; Directs Rs 20 lakh as damages","author":"Editor","date":"August 24, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a case where permanent injunction was sought against use of Royal Champs, a Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited product (\u2018defendants'), selling whiskeys under a deceptively similar name and label design and using the goodwill of Royal Stag, a Seagram India Private Limited product (plaintiffs), Navin Chawla, J.\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\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":359365,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/08\/karpure-campure-trademark-dispute-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":370620,"position":5},"title":"\u2018KARPURE\u2019 not deceptively similar to \u2018CAMPURE\u2019; Bombay HC declines interim injunction to Mangalam Organics in trade mark dispute","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cRelevant consumer base for the products which are deodorizers, air purifiers etc would be an average educated class with the ability to differentiate between the rival marks especially when there is no resemblance apart from a phonetic similarity between the two when viewed as a whole.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CAMPURE trade mark infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370620","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\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=370620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370620\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/370629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=370620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=370620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=370620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}