Case Reviews | Intellepedia

You 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.

If 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.

BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill

Blue jay birds with apparel and baseball equipment

In Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., the Delhi High Court clarified that global fame alone does not establish trademark rights in India. The ruling in BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY underscores the need to prove use and goodwill within India to succeed in cancellation and passing off claims.

“Little Hearts”, Big Infringement: Delhi HC Injunction

Banner with the text “Little Hearts”, Big Infringement: Delhi High Court’s Ad-Interim Injunction Explained beside a coffee mug and scattered red heart-shaped biscuits.

An ad interim injunction was granted by the Delhi High Court in a dispute concerning the “Little Hearts” mark, 3D biscuit shape, trade dress and product images. Amazon was directed to delist the infringing listings pending further orders.

Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application

Composite image showing a close-up of breathable maroon fabric, a cartoon panel of judges giving thumbs up, and colorful yarn balls representing air-rich yarn innovation in a legal patent context

Delhi HC revives Trident’s patent application, citing flaws in the inventive step analysis of its air-rich yarn invention.

Are Employment Agreements sufficient for establishing Proof Of Right?

Close-up of an employment agreement document on a clipboard with a pen placed on top, surrounded by office supplies on a textured surface.

Delhi High Court rules employment agreements valid as proof of right under Section 7(2), aiding patent filings involving deceased inventors.

Unauthorized Commercial Use of Persona of Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan: Delhi HC Intervenes

In the background of merchandise such as t-shirts, mugs, an overlay text stating 'Unauthorized Commercial Use of Persona of Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan: Delhi HC Intervenes'

The Delhi High Court intervened to protect actor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan’s personality and publicity rights from unauthorized commercial use, including AI-generated impersonations. The Court granted interim injunctions, emphasizing the enforceability of celebrity rights under Indian law.

From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup Story

In the case of ITC Limited & Anr. vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, the court declined to restrain a former collaborator from using the restaurant brand ‘DAKSHIN’. Despite ITC’s registrations, the court held that past agreements, shared use, and acquiescence over decades created factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

In the case of M/s Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed whether claims of patent rights can prevent registration of e-rickshaws. The court ruled that vehicle registration authorities must act according to statutory rules, and pending patent claims do not automatically restrain registration.

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.