In Hirotsu Bio Science v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that branding a process as “in vitro detection” does not rescue it from Section 3(i) when, in substance, it diagnoses cancer. The nematode-based urine test was thus refused as an excluded diagnostic method.
Read more about ‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)Logo Vs. Word Trademarks: Haveli Logo Trademark Rights Do Not Extend to the Common Word
In the case of Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, the court examined whether long standing use of a brand name and registration of logos could convert a commonly used word into exclusive trademark property. The court considered the nature of the word HAVELI, its widespread use in the hospitality sector, and whether consumers were likely to associate that word with only one restaurant chain. The court rejected the claim that registration of a logo or a composite mark could confer exclusive rights over a common word.
Read more about Logo Vs. Word Trademarks: Haveli Logo Trademark Rights Do Not Extend to the Common WordHashtag, Trade Mark, Defamation: When #THRILLOPHILIA Crossed the Line on Social Media
In the case of Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited vs Mrs Vishali Maggo, the court drew a clear line between a consumer complaint and the use of a registered trade mark as a hashtag to amplify allegations of fraud and scam on a professional social media platform.
Read more about Hashtag, Trade Mark, Defamation: When #THRILLOPHILIA Crossed the Line on Social MediaTrademark Application Abandonment: Madras HC Ruling on STIMULAID
An appeal against trademark application abandonment for STIMULAID was decided by the Madras High Court. The Registrar’s order was set aside after compliance with the examination report and Form TM M filing was recorded.
Read more about Trademark Application Abandonment: Madras HC Ruling on STIMULAIDShattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent
The Calcutta High Court overturns OCV patent rejection, reinforcing ‘teaching away’ doctrine, inventive step analysis, and Section 3(e) interpretation.
Read more about Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patentSame MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped In
In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the court examined whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them online could be justified as resale, or whether such conduct crossed into trade mark infringement, trade dress misuse, and passing off.
Read more about Same MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped InSame Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort
In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.
Read more about Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright ComfortDelhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI mark
An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in a trade mark infringement suit concerning KVIC’s KHADI mark. Use of KHADI VEDA and related domain names and online listings was restrained.
Read more about Delhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI markYou Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly
In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.
Read more about You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns CostlyIf You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access
In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench provided a structured analysis of what constitutes territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement actions after examining the plaintiff’s principal office, online listings, and the role of marketing agreements.
Read more about If You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access