Intellectual Property | Intellepedia

Delhi High Court Cancels Registration in JBR Trademark Dispute

A dramatic legal-themed illustration showing the Delhi High Court in the background, a judge’s gavel striking down a circular “JBR” emblem stamped in red with “CANCELLED,” symbolising the cancellation of trademark registration amid a court dispute.

The registration of the JBR trademark was cancelled after identity of marks and similarity of goods were found under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar’s order dismissing the opposition was set aside.

‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

Close-up of a dictionary page with the word “Diagnosis” highlighted in bright green by a chisel-tip highlighter, emphasizing the term against surrounding text.

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.

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.

Hashtag, 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.

Trademark Application Abandonment: Madras HC Ruling on STIMULAID

Assorted edible seeds and grains arranged in neat sections

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.

Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

Close-up view of pink-tinted glass fibers arranged in parallel strands, showing fine linear textures and an iridescent sheen

The Calcutta High Court overturns OCV patent rejection, reinforcing ‘teaching away’ doctrine, inventive step analysis, and Section 3(e) interpretation.

Same 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.

Same 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.

Delhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI mark

Banner with ayurvedic skincare items and title on Khadi Veda case

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.

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.