trademark infringement

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff stated that on 22-01-2025, the defendant announced on various social media platforms that the Assigned Film will be released on 27-03-2025. He stated that the theatrical release of the Assigned Film is proposed in the Southern States of India i.e., Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Pondicherry in original language – Tamil as well as overseas (except Nepal).

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The infringing materials found on the site of the defendant are counterfeit goods of the plaintiff’s products, affixed with the plaintiff’s registered marks. A clear indicative of the counterfeiting activity towards the plaintiff’s products, are the observations and photographs as attached by the Local Commissioner in its report.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs’ RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant’s justification for adopting the mark ‘RAMADA’ is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.

Ghadi trade mark infringement
Case BriefsDistrict Court

The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The comparison of images of both names makes it abundantly clear that defendant 1 has copied the most distinctive part of the plaintiff’s mark, which is ‘Evergreen’. In the case of the defendant 1, the word ‘Evergreen’ has the prefix “JV” and the suffix “Sweets and Treats”, whereas in the plaintiff’s case, the word ‘Evergreen’ is followed by the word “Sweet House”.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is not necessary for a registered owner of a trademark to proceed against all entities using similar marks in order to proceed against any one of them. There may be a myriad reasons why a proprietor of a registered trademark may refrain from proceeding against entities that it considers are using infringing marks.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court was prima facie satisfied that Amaris Flagship’s impugned “Shield-It Necklace” is visually and structurally similar, with similar colour combinations and placement of elements/ ornamentation, to Bulgari S.P.A.’s “Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace”.

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.