Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

The Bengaluru court held that both Nandhini Deluxe and Hotel Nandini can continue using their trademarks as the word Nandini was found to be generic. Neither party proved exclusive rights or trademark infringement, resulting in dismissal of both claims.

Compulsory licensing in copyrights, Al Hamd challenges PPL’s fees

This post examines Al Hamd Tradenation’s challenge to PPL’s license fee structure under Section 31 of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High Court has deferred a final decision, keeping all issues open for future consideration.

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

The Delhi High Court declared VIVO a well-known trademark in India after finding infringement and passing off by an adhesive manufacturer. The Court issued a permanent injunction and set out legal criteria for determining well-known status and trademark protection under Indian law.

Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan

The Delhi High Court ordered an influencer to take down disparaging videos about Complan’s sugar content, finding the statements misleading and damaging to Zydus’ trademark. The court highlighted the responsibility of influencers to ensure accuracy, particularly in health-related content.

VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles

The Delhi District Court granted VANS a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and counterfeiting by Mr. Gopal Goyal under the John Doe principles. The judgment emphasises the protection of trademark rights and the consequences of passing off in India.

“CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

The Delhi High Court dismissed L’Oréal’s appeal against the CLARIWASH trademark, finding no deceptive similarity or grounds for cancellation. Procedural errors during examination were not considered sufficient for removal, and the respondent’s prior use was recognised.

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal against an injunction favouring Himalaya’s prior use of the EVECARE trademark. The court held that prior user rights and likelihood of confusion prevailed over trademark class differences in this passing off case.

Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has restrained the circulation of Ensure Diabetes Care’s advertisement for disparaging Horlicks Diabetes Plus. The ruling addresses the limits of comparative advertising and highlights key principles concerning disparagement and intellectual property rights in India.

Design infringing water purifiers taken down from Flipkart

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction in favour of Kent RO Systems, restraining the sale of design infringing water purifiers on Flipkart. The order protects Kent’s registered design and addresses issues of passing off and market confusion.

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court ruled that methods for producing antibodies in genetically modified animals are patentable under Indian law and are not excluded by Section 3(i). This decision clarifies the scope of patent eligibility for biotechnological inventions involving animal models.