HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Khadi’s Device Mark; Police Protection for Live-In Couples; Wonderchef’s Reputation; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
device mark
Bombay HC directs Registry to register Khadi’s device mark “PRAKRITIK PAINT” in respect of cow dung based paints
There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is openly using the subject device mark in the context of its goods in the public domain and the Registrar completely ignored these documents while passing the impugned order.
‘Puma cats and lion belong to same family, Felidae’; Delhi HC cancels ‘leaping lion’ mark of Gajari Online Services Pvt. Ltd in rectification petition filed by PUMA
“The continued use of the impugned mark will affect the purity of the registered trade mark as the same is likely to cause deception and confusion, in terms of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to CNN News Channel for mark ‘CNN’ in relation to news services
“The aspect of likelihood of confusion has to be examined from the perspective of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”
Delhi High Court refuses injunction in favour of NILKAMAL for its word mark; Grants injunction in favour for its device mark
The marks have to be compared as a whole mark, thus compared, there is no phonetic similarity between NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI.
Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Monster Energy Co. for its ‘MONSTER’ mark
“The mere insertion of 
figure above the word 
in the defendant’s mark does not mitigate the fact of infringement or of the defendant consciously seeking to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.”
[Glucon-D v Gluco-D] Delhi High Court restrains Cipla from using GLUCO-C and GLUCO-D for its energy drinks
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.
Delhi High Court declares ‘SUPREME’ red-box device mark as a ‘well-known’ trade mark for apparel and clothing
The defendant, Dhanpreet Singh Trading was restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trade marks or copyrights in respect of the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME'.
Words ‘Abu Dhabi Global Market’ used in a device mark are distinctive in nature: Delhi High Court
So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological terms, be distinctive.
Delhi High Court restrains Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd. from using the mark ‘JINDAL’ on its PVC pipes
The Delhi High Court opined that Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd. will not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX ', which was registered in its favour for PVC pipes.
“SUBWAY” and “SUBERB” not phonetically and deceptively similar; Delhi High Court dismisses Subway’s plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food’s mark “SUBERB”
The Delhi High Court dismissed Subway's plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food's mark “SUBERB” in a trade mark infringement case and held that the appearance of Infinity Food's red and white “SUBERB” mark could not be said to be deceptively similar to Subway's device mark, “SUBWAY”.
Bombay High Court grants interim injunction against Mumbai Khadi and Village Industries Association for allegedly using device mark/logo ‘KHADI’
The Court observed that Khadi & Village Industries Commission holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.
Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to American Eagle against Ektarfa Garments in a trademark and copyright infringement suit
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section