mark

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive/leading/memorable/essential feature).

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court stated that physicians, doctors, and chemists are knowledgeable in their field, however they are not infallible, and in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products there cannot be any leeway for mistakes, since even a possibility of a mistake may prove fatal to the consumers.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendant’s mark ‘RALLEYZ’ is constituted in such a manner so as to phonetically sit remarkably close, if not together, and squeezed with, plaintiffs’ mark ‘RALEIGH’. It is clearly in the core zone of deceptive similarity, likely to cause confusion and likely to have an association with plaintiff’s mark.”

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 investigation report, prima facie, reveals that the mark ‘AL-WALIMAH’ is never used by Respondent 1 and no rice product under the impugned mark is found in the market survey of relevant shops, nor did any shopkeeper expressed any knowledge in that regard.”

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.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The users are being re-directed to website www.leadleacoin.com, an alleged bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange, which is not linked with plaintiff. It appears to be an illegitimate website, intended to be used as ploy to induce users to invest substantial sums of money, being drawn using “SEQUOIA” mark.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendants’ act of adopting mark which is structurally and visually nearly identical to that of plaintiff along with a trade dress which is also imitative of that of plaintiff, indicates that defendants have strained every nerve to come as close to plaintiff as possible.”