The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Anuj Bindal, the prior user of ‘Dabal Kabooter Brand,’ in a trademark dispute against ‘Double Kabooter Brand.’ This case highlights the importance of prior use and the implications of false statements in trademark applications.
Read more about Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa JaaCategory: Trademarks
Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy
Delhi High Court upholds Haldiram’s trademark rights, awarding Rs. 50 lakhs in damages and recognizing ‘HALDIRAM’ as a well-known mark in a legal battle against unauthorized use.
Read more about Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand SupremacyLost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application
Delhi High Court revives Dabur’s ODONIL MYSTIC ROSE trademark application, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition.
Read more about Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark ApplicationThe Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order
In this review petition filed before the Delhi High Court, the Court rejected the plea filed by the Trademark Officer to remove their names from the order.
Read more about The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the orderLights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY
The Delhi High Court has restrained KSC Industries from using the mark “Everyday” for lighters, finding it deceptively similar to Eveready’s well-known trademark for batteries and lighting products.
Read more about Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADYITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar Cigarettes
ITC Limited, the owner of the “Gold Flake” trademark for cigarettes, successfully obtained an injunction against competitors using confusingly similar brands like “Gold Falcon” and “Gold Flicker”.
Read more about ITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar CigarettesNon-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction
A Taiwanese adhesive tape company successfully obtained an injunction against a competitor using “Reindeer” and “Reindeer Wonder” trademarks on PVC pipes. The Court found these marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Deer” brand and intended to mislead customers.
Read more about Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunctionNo more ‘Social’izing for Social chai
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against a restaurant/café operating under the name of Social Chai. The Court held that the addition of the suffix “CHAI” to “SOCIAL” is insufficient to effectively differentiate the Defendant’s mark from that of the Plaintiff’s, especially due to the identical domain of restaurant services.
Read more about No more ‘Social’izing for Social chaiExacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts
In this infringement and passing off case filed by Sun Pharma against Glenmark, the Court was asked to determine if the trademark “INDAMET” infringes upon the trademark “ISTAMET XR CP”. Sun Pharma’s “ISTAMET XR CP” was registered in 2014 by its predecessor in title, and Glenmark’s trademark, INDAMET, was registered in 2021.
Read more about Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant PartsWell-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement
The dispute centers on the “PEBBLE” mark used by V Guard and Crompton. V Guard, adopting it in 2013 for electric water heaters, clashed with Crompton’s 2020 application for “CROMPTON PEBBLE” for electric irons. Delhi High Court’s injunction restrained Crompton from using “PEBBLE,” citing Trade Marks Act violations. The Court upheld V Guard’s reputation, dismissing Crompton’s appeal.
Read more about Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement