Trademarks | Intellepedia

Whose mark got the ‘X’ Factor? Relaxo Footwear vs XS Brands

The Delhi High Court analyzed a trademark dispute between Relaxo Footwears Limited and XS Brands Consultancy over the use of the ‘X’ device mark. Despite Relaxo’s claims of prior use, the court found in favor of XS Brands, citing the limited likelihood of consumer confusion and the crowded trademark register.

Announcement: Patent and Trademark Agent Examinations 2025 by Indian IP Office

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has released the schedule for the Trade Marks Agent Examination and Patent Agent Examination for 2025. These examinations are crucial for individuals aiming to become registered intellectual property agents. The exams will take place in various cities across India on 4th and 5th January 2025.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of MRF Limited in a trademark and copyright infringement case against Powermax Rubber Factory and Powermax Tyre, granting a permanent injunction and awarding nominal damages. The court found Powermax’s use of similar logos likely to cause consumer confusion and mislead the public.

Another Dis’connected’ order by the registry, set aside by the Court

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a refusal order by a Senior Examiner of Trademarks against the registration of the trademark ‘ELECTRONICA.’ The Court directed a new hearing and a reasoned order, highlighting procedural fairness in trademark registration processes.

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion.

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced a decree favoring Glaxo Group Limited against Mr. Rajiv Mukul, restraining the use of ‘BETNEVIN’ due to trademark infringement of ‘BETNESOL’. The Court upheld that infringement determination could be made in an execution petition to enforce the decree of injunction.

Crocs croaks out its clone! Court Cancels ‘Crocksclub’ trademark

Crocs Inc. successfully filed a rectification petition to remove the trademark CROCKSCLUB, securing sole rights to the CROCS trademark in India. The court ruled in favor of Crocs Inc., highlighting the likelihood of confusion and risk of association with CROCS goods.

Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow” to Unilever’s “Handsome”

The Calcutta High Court ruled that while Emami could not establish trademark infringement, it succeeded in its passing off claim against Unilever’s ‘Glow and Handsome’. The court ordered Unilever to cease using the mark within a month, upholding Emami’s rights and protecting its brand reputation.

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court overturned the Trade Marks Registry’s decision to reject Prem Biyani’s trademark application for the mark “Zee” under Class 5, which was opposed by Zee Entertainment. The Court noted that Zee Entertainment’s mark, although well-known, was not registered under Class 5 and did not appear in isolation. The case has been remanded to the Trade Marks Registry for reconsideration.

All set for VOMISET : Court restores trademark and allows renewal beyond deadline

Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd successfully petitioned the High Court of Bombay to restore its trademark application for VOMISET and allow its renewal. The Court’s decision was based on the precedent set in the Motwane case, highlighting the importance of proper notification for trademark renewals.