{"id":373487,"date":"2026-01-22T16:00:51","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T10:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=373487"},"modified":"2026-01-23T16:51:09","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T11:21:09","slug":"del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/","title":{"rendered":"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic; cannot be monopolized"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 from using a trade mark deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ were generic in nature, were used widely for various goods and services in India and therefore were incapable of monopolization.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court held that the marks were not deceptively similar and dismissed the application for interim injunction.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The plaintiff had claimed infringement of copyright, passing off, misrepresentation and dilution of their trade mark ‘TIGER GOLD BRAND’\/\"\" (‘plaintiff’s marks’) by the respondent’s use of the mark ‘TIGER PREMIUM BRAND’\/ \"\" (‘impugned marks’). Vide order dated 6-5-2025, the parties had been referred to Delhi High Court Medication and Conciliation Centre, to amicably resolve the disputes between them, however, the parties had been unable to settle the dispute and thereafter, notice had been issued in the present application.<\/p>\n

Defendants 1 to 3 had contended that the term ‘TIGER’ cannot be monopolized by the plaintiff as ‘TIGER’ is common to the trade and a generic word. It was contended by Defendants 1 to 3 that the mark ‘TIGER’ is commonly used for goods falling under Class 7 and the word ‘TIGER’ in standalone has no trade mark value and is not capable of distinguishing the goods and services. Defendants 1 to 3 had further averred that in absence of the registration of word mark ‘TIGER’ or any ‘TIGER’ formative marks, which is relevant for examining the deceptive similarity of the impugned mark, the plaintiff had not been able to establish ownership over the mark ‘TIGER’.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court noted that the the marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and, therefore, were incapable of registration as trade marks. The plaintiff did not possess any exclusive right to use the word marks “TIGER” and “BRAND.” The Court further stated that there existed extensive and widespread use of the mark “TIGER” in relation to various goods and services across India. Consequently, the mark “TIGER” was publici juris<\/span>, common to the trade, and was not exclusively or uniquely associated with the plaintiff’s goods or services. Further, the plaintiff had failed to place on record any material to demonstrate that the mark “TIGER” had acquired a secondary meaning. The Court opined that in the absence of any distinctive or exclusive character, the mark “TIGER” could not confer any exclusive proprietary rights upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to claim exclusivity over the same.<\/p>\n

On the question of deceptive similarity, the Court noted that when viewed in its entirety, the impugned mark was wholly dissimilar and visually distinct from the plaintiff’s mark, including the depiction of the “TIGER” device. The colour scheme of the impugned mark was also different, and when considered as a whole, the plaintiff’s mark and the impugned mark were distinguishable, inter alia, due to the use of the word “PREMIUM.” Further, the descriptive and commonly used nature of the words “TIGER” and “BRAND” in the hospitality industry negated any likelihood of deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that since the marks “TIGER” and “BRAND” were generic and common to the trade, the plaintiff could not claim exclusive ownership over those elements forming part of the impugned mark. In terms of Section 17<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, registration conferred exclusive rights only in respect of the trade mark taken as a whole. As the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over the words “TIGER” and “BRAND,” no deceptive similarity could be established. It is well settled that registration of a device mark does not automatically confer exclusive rights over the words contained therein.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the rival marks were neither identical nor deceptively similar, and consisted of generic elements incapable of monopolisation. The plaintiff had failed to establish misrepresentation by the defendant or to prove any damage arising from the adoption of the impugned mark. Additionally, the plaintiff had not demonstrated goodwill or reputation, and consequently, no prima facie case of passing off was made out. There was no likelihood of confusion among consumers that could have harmed the plaintiff’s reputation or diluted its mark.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.<\/p>\n

[Mayank Jain v. Atulya Discs, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 107<\/a>, decided on 9-1-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

For the Plaintiff:<\/span> R.P. Yadav, Riju Mani Talukdar, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Amit George, Manish Gandhi, Vaibhav Gandhi, Muskan Gandhi, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Rupam Jha, Rohini Sharma, Chanchal Sharma, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The mark ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67539,"featured_media":373495,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[97335,97333,2543,97332,87202,97336,97334,97330,97331],"class_list":["post-373487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-brand-generic-term","tag-deceptively-similarity","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-generic-terms","tag-justice-tejas-karia","tag-monopolization-of-mark","tag-tiger-generic-term","tag-tiger-gold-brand","tag-tiger-premium-brand"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC: 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' generic terms; can't be monopolized | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.\" \/>\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\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic; cannot be monopolized\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-01-22T10:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-23T11:21:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic; cannot be monopolized\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\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\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC: 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' generic terms; can't be monopolized | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-22T10:30:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-23T11:21:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"TIGER BRAND trade mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic; cannot be monopolized\"}]},{\"@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\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\",\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Prarthana Gupta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC: 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' generic terms; can't be monopolized | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.","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\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic; cannot be monopolized","og_description":"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-22T10:30:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-23T11:21:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prarthana Gupta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic; cannot be monopolized","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prarthana Gupta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/","name":"Del HC: 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' generic terms; can't be monopolized | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-22T10:30:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-23T11:21:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"description":"Delhi High Court holds that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic terms and cannot be monopolised or registered as trade marks; rejects application for interim injunction stating no deceptive similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"TIGER BRAND trade mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/22\/del-hc-tiger-and-brand-generic-terms-cant-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Know why Delhi HC ruled marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic; cannot be monopolized"}]},{"@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\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382","name":"Prarthana Gupta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Prarthana Gupta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TIGER-BRAND-trade-mark-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":281807,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/17\/subway-and-suberb-not-phonetically-and-decptively-similar-delhi-high-court-dismisses-subway-plea-for-injunction-for-its-mark-subway-against-infinity-food-mark-suberb-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":373487,"position":0},"title":"\u201cSUBWAY\u201d and \u201cSUBERB\u201d not phonetically and deceptively similar; Delhi High Court dismisses Subway’s plea for injunction for its mark \u201cSUBWAY\u201d against Infinity Food’s mark \u201cSUBERB\u201d","author":"Editor","date":"January 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court dismissed Subway's plea for injunction for its mark \u201cSUBWAY\u201d against Infinity Food's mark \u201cSUBERB\u201d in a trade mark infringement case and held that the appearance of Infinity Food's red and white \u201cSUBERB\u201d mark could not be said to be deceptively similar to Subway's device mark, \u201cSUBWAY\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":297335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":373487,"position":1},"title":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark 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":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":357858,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/yatra-is-generic-word-cannot-be-monopolized-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":373487,"position":2},"title":"\u2018YATRA\u2019 is a generic and descriptive word, cannot be monopolized: Delhi HC denies relief to travel company in trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Plaintiff\u2019s registered marks are Device Marks and not Word Marks. Hence, no infringement can be brought merely because of the use of the word \u2018YATRA\u2019 by the Defendant as \u2018YATRA\u2019 is a generic and a descriptive word.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Yatra is generic","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362536,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/04\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-protecting-mankind-pharmas-kind-trade-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":373487,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court grants interim injunction protecting Mankind Pharma\u2019s \u2018KIND\u2019 trade mark","author":"Editor","date":"October 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe identity in the defendant\u2019s marks is so close to Mankind\u2019s trade marks that the two are indistinguishable. The infringing activities of the defendant is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of Mankind leading to erosion of consumers\u2019 trust.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"protecting Mankind Pharma","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277941,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/23\/delhi-high-court-confirms-ad-interim-ex-parte-order-of-injunction-passed-in-favour-of-sun-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-for-its-mark-forzest-cost-of-rs-10-lakhs-imposed-for-concealing\/","url_meta":{"origin":373487,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court confirms ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction passed in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. for its mark \u2018FORZEST\u2019; Cost of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed for concealing material facts","author":"Editor","date":"November 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single Judge Bench of Navin Chawla, J. confirmed the order of injunction passed by this Court in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and imposed Rs. 10,00,000 costs on\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\/07\/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\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"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":373487,"position":5},"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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373487","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\/67539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=373487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373487\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/373495"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=373487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=373487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=373487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}