Trademarks | Intellepedia

KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior use

In the case of Kent Ro Systems Limited v. Kent Cables Private Limited, two businesses using the same mark KENT clashed over who could sell fans under that mark. One side relied on its strong reputation in water purifiers and home appliances. The other relied on earlier adoption of KENT for electrical goods and evidence of fan sales over several years. The Division Bench upheld the interim restraint against Kent RO and left the final rights to be decided at trial.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.

Dead Company Dead Mark: Trademark cannot survive a Non Existent Owner or unrecorded trademark assignment

Gravestone in a green field engraved with “Here lies a trademark that died when the company died,” symbolizing a struck-off company and the legal issue of an unrecorded trademark assignment in trademark law.

In the case of Tibbs Food Private Limited vs D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited, the petitioner sought removal of a trademark registered for “D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited.” During the proceedings it came to light that the registered proprietor company had already been struck off, and the trademark had allegedly been assigned to an individual years earlier. The court had to decide whether the registration could continue in the name of a non existent company and what effect the unrecorded assignment would have.

OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights

Green-themed banner featuring an olive green T-shirt shown from the back on the left, a wooden board with green, black, and red olives and a small bottle of olive oil in the center, and an olive green T-shirt on the right printed with the phrase “OLIVE YOU” against a dark green background.

Delhi High Court refuses OLIVE trademark in Class 35, holding similarity with Class 25 marks and lack of proven prior user rights under Section 11.

A tipsy decision by the Trademark office? Court clarifies on geographical association of TAJPURIYA

A simple black and white illustration of two silhouetted figures standing together. One speech bubble says “SO?” while another larger bubble says “TAJPURIYA? That’s a tribe!” The image appears to represent a discussion or disagreement about whether the word TAJPURIYA refers to a tribal name.

In the case of M/S Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, a liquor company applied to register the mark TAJPURIYA for alcoholic beverages. The Trade Marks Office first objected that the mark was geographical. However, in the final refusal order, it stated that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe associated with alcohol rituals. The High Court examined whether such a change in grounds was legally valid.

Trademark: ‘One For All’, Distinct For One? Delhi High Court Says Yes

In the case of Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL” for educational publications in Class 16. The Registrar refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was common, laudatory, and lacked distinctiveness. The Single Judge upheld the refusal. The Division Bench examined whether the expression was inherently distinctive or merely descriptive in the context of books.

Too good to be true: the ALPS Rosemary Water Trademark Infringement case

Delhi Court awards ₹10 lakh damages in ALPS GOODNESS trademark infringement case, holding sellers liable for counterfeiting and directing Flipkart to disable listings.

Job Opening Junior Trademark Associate for LLM IP Graduates

BananaIP is inviting LLM IP graduates to join its Bengaluru trademark team as a junior trademark associate, with hands-on work across prosecution, advisory, and brand protection. An ideal role for freshers who want to ground their careers in serious, high-quality IP practice.

When GM Modular Finds a Look-Alike: Trade Mark Rectification Against ‘GMW’

lat lay of modern electrical switches, sockets, and controls arranged in a grid.

Trade mark rectification under Section 57 was allowed for removal of the ‘GMW’ mark from the Register of Trade Marks. Prior user rights in ‘GM’ were recognised for identical and allied goods.