{"id":6212,"date":"2014-06-10T18:06:00","date_gmt":"2014-06-10T18:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6212"},"modified":"2015-03-14T11:02:58","modified_gmt":"2015-03-14T05:32:58","slug":"merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","title":{"rendered":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:<\/b> In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of  SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim injunction restraining a firm from marketing an edible oil brand on the grounds that the name was similar to an established product. The court said that merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark. In the present case, the plaintiff had acquired registration of the trademark \u2018RISO\u2019 in 2012. The plaintiff alleged that the impugned trademark \u2018RISO-LITE\u2019 of the defendant was deceptively similar to its mark \u2018RISO\u2019. The Counsel for the defendant argued  that \u2018RISO\u2019 was an Italian name for rice and hence it was descriptive in nature and can be freely used by anyone. The Court however rejected this contention stating though it is true that certain words are often borrowed from a foreign language and commonly used in India but \u2018RISO\u2019 is not one such word which is commonly used in India, and cannot be held as descriptive in the Indian context. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had not honestly adopted and conceived the said trademark \u2018RISO\u2019 since there were other marks, already using the word \u2018RISO\u2019, existing in the market, namely \u201cRISONA\u201d and \u201cRISOLA\u201d. However, the court held that the defendant in the present case has not been able to show that the prior marks \u2018RISONA\u2019 or \u2018RISOLA\u2019 have actually been used or that they have a reputation or market of their own and thereby granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. Bhuwaneshwar Refineries Pvt. Ltd., Notice of Motion No. 139 of 2014<\/span><\/i>, decided on May 9, 2014<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

To read the full judgment, click here<\/i><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of  SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual_property"],"yoast_head":"\nMerely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark | SCC Times<\/title>\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\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of  SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/\" \/>\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=\"2014-06-10T18:06:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/\",\"name\":\"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-06-10T18:06:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark | SCC Times","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\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark","og_description":"Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of  SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2014-06-10T18:06:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","name":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can't be the basis of a new trademark | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2014-06-10T18:06:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6527,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/10\/merely-adding-a-suffix-to-a-popular-name-can-t-be-the-basis-of-a-new-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":0},"title":"Merely adding a suffix to a popular name can’t be the basis of a new trademark","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 10, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: In a case of alleged infringement of a trademark, a bench comprising of\u00a0 SJ Kathawala, J granted an interim injunction restraining a firm from marketing an edible oil brand on the grounds that the name was similar to an established product. The court said that merely adding\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253563,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/trademark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Will the rights of a prior user override those of subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of \u2018Rajdhani\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement. Legacy of Rajdhani Plaintiff had originally conceived and adopted the trademark\/label \u2018Rajdhani\u2019 for several products. Plaintiff company was formed in 1983 and carried forward the said business under the trademark\/label\u2019 Rajdhani\u2019. Trademarks\/Labels are owned\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":275336,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/10\/delhi-high-court-restrains-appleplant-being-deceptively-visually-and-semantically-similar-to-applestree\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains APPLEPLANT being deceptively, visually and semantically similar to APPLESTREE","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting any product under the trademark \u2018APPLEPLANT\u2019 or any trademark similar to Plaintiff's trademark \u2018APPLESTREE\u2019, which may cause confusion and deception in the market, leading to\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\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-125-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293654,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/02\/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-in-favour-of-times-group-for-its-logo-enow-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court denies injunction to Times Group for its claim of \u2018prior use\u2019 of logo \u201cNOW\u201d, \u201cE NOW\u201d \u201cE-NEWS NOW\u201d","author":"Arunima","date":"June 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and \u2018publici juris\u2019 in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a\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\/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":288800,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/07\/bombay-high-court-denies-interim-relief-to-phonepe-against-bharatpe-trademark-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":4},"title":"Interim Relief to \u2018Phonepe\u2019 denied in trademark infringement suit; Trademarks \u2018phonepe\u2019 and \u2018postpe\u2019 have no phonetic similarity: Bombay High Court","author":"Editor","date":"April 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The court while denying the interim relief to \u2018Phonepe\u2019 said that it is settled law that when the plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case in its favor, the aspects of grave and irreparable loss in the absence of interim reliefs and balance of convenience pale into insignificance.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/13\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-jamshedpur-based-restaurant-social-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-social\/","url_meta":{"origin":6212,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction against Jamshedpur based restaurant SOCIAL 75 for using the registered trademark SOCIAL","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a trademark infringement suit filed by a company namely, Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd. (\u2018plaintiff') running a well-known restaurant, SOCIAL against the offending trademark SOCIAL 75 (\u2018defendant'), Jyoti Singh J. granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, as the impugned trademark is deceptively similar to the registered\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\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.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-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.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-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Delhi-High-Court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-against-Jamshedpur-based-restaurant-SOCIAL-75-for-using-the-registered-trademark-SOCIAL-2-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6212","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6212\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}