Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The lack of bona fide on the part of the defendant is also demonstrated from the fact that it has adopted an identical colour combination of ‘blue and white’, as used by the plaintiff. Pertinently, most of the measuring tapes of the defendant selling under different marks do not bear the ‘blue and white’ colour combination.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The claims made by the Manoj Manchu not only have the effect of tarnishing the credibility of Vinay Maheshwari as a respectable member of society but may further encourage the other individuals and media platforms to spread the defamatory content further. It may lead to widespread public dissemination and lasting damage to his image.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Plaintiff’s X mark is derived from their ‘SPARX’ logo and has been used in a standalone form in relation to its footwear products sold under the ‘SPARX’ brand. Plaintiff’s grievance is against the defendants who started using defendants’ X mark, which was deceptively similar, for footwear as well, being identical goods.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The risk of having others bona fide using ‘JINDAL’ as a name for their products, and in the marks used on their products, is a risk that plaintiff consciously took, when it obtained registration of the mark ‘JINDAL’.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Since defendants are using different marks on outer packaging of the impugned products and identical roundel devices on the individual cigarette sticks, the Local Commissioner is permitted to open cigarette packs to inspect the logos/devices on the individual cigarette sticks.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices of the products. A consumer who uses such products would be aware of the difference between ‘Lotus Splash’ and plaintiff’s lotus family of products.”