Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“To hold that a customer would be confused, because the word ‘XPERT’ forms the second part of the second word of the impugned mark, would be consigning reality to oblivion.”
“The Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against an interim order ought not to disturb the prima facie findings, but it can substitute its own discretion when it is found that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction in ignorance of settled principles of law.”
Bombay High Court explained that there is no power vested in the police under Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to seal the factory premises, where the incriminating articles are situated.
The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
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”.
The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal moved by the Armasuisse (Federal Agency of the Swiss Federation) and held that the marks ‘white cross on black background’, ‘white cross on red background’ and ‘SWISS MILITARY’ were all ineligible for trade mark registration in respect of textiles as it might suggest link to Swiss military establishment.
The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court, in a suit for trade mark infringement by a habitual cyber squatter, Namase Patel over Adobe’s marks ‘ADOBE’, ‘PHOTOSHOP’ and ‘SPARK’, granted Rs. 2 Crore as damages to Adobe.
Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name ‘www.dream11.bet’ and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by a US based company for protection of its mark ‘JOHN DEERE’ and
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar
Delhi High Court: While deciding a case in which an appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Senior