Trademarks | Intellepedia

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court clarified that trademark infringement requires a holistic comparison of marks and their respective goods or services. The court found no likelihood of confusion between Unisn and Unison, highlighting the need to consider all circumstances and the anti-dissection rule in such cases.

Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

The Bombay High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction in a trademark dispute due to Atyati’s suppression of material facts regarding Cognizant’s prior logo use. This decision reiterates the necessity for full and transparent disclosure in ex-parte proceedings.

Novartis says No to Novarish

The Bombay High Court granted Novartis an injunction against Novarish Healthcare for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found the marks deceptively similar and protected Novartis’s established rights under Indian IP law.

Did Emerge Classes’ mark fail the ‘passing off’ test?

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld an injunction against Emerge Classes in a trademark passing off dispute, emphasising goodwill and deceptive similarity. The Court found that overall similarity between the marks was likely to cause confusion among students.

Similarity Overdose : Glaxo’s trade dress vs Qpharm’s trade dress

The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against Qpharm for using deceptively similar packaging and trade dress to Glaxo’s products. This case illustrates the enforcement of trade dress rights and legal remedies available for trademark infringement and passing off in the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

Tusk of War : Girnar’s Jumbo Overpowers North-Western’s Haathi

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Registrar’s order granting North-Western a trademark with an elephant device, favouring Girnar’s prior rights. The judgment clarifies the assessment of prominent features and evidence in trademark disputes within the tea industry.

Madras HC on Phonetic Similarity: Little Einsteins vs. Little Einsteinz

The Madras High Court examined the issue of phonetic similarity in a trademark dispute involving ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’ and ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’. It held that the Respondent’s mark was deceptively similar, leading to rectification of the Trade Marks Register.

Court Checks Out: ‘GINGER’ Hotel’s Fraudsters Blocked

The Delhi High Court has blocked fraudulent websites infringing on the Ginger Hotel brand and ordered banks to freeze associated accounts. This protects IHCL’s trademark rights and safeguards consumer interests pending further hearings.

Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants Permanent Injunction

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction to Heifer Project International over unauthorized use of its trademarks by Heifer Project India Trust. The Court’s decision highlights the significance of valid trademark registration and enforcement in India’s non-profit sector.

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

The Delhi High Court dismissed Relaxo Footwear’s claim over the ‘X’ device mark against XS Brands, highlighting the significance of coexistence and lack of confusion in trademark disputes. The post discusses the Court’s structured analysis of both parties’ arguments and the broader implications for mark distinctiveness.