Trademarks | Intellepedia

Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy

This post explores Haldiram’s successful legal action against trademark infringement, resulting in permanent injunctions and damages. It discusses the judicial recognition of Haldiram as a well-known mark, reflecting broader implications for brand protection in India.

Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application

The Delhi High Court restored Dabur’s trademark application for Odonil Mystic Rose, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition. The judgment reinforces the importance of fair opportunity and natural justice in trademark proceedings.

The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order

The Delhi High Court refused to remove trademark officers’ names from an order regarding delayed opposition filings. The judgment emphasises the need for transparency and adherence to limitation periods in trademark matters.

Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.

ITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar Cigarettes

The Delhi High Court has restrained several parties from selling cigarettes using deceptively similar marks to ITC’s Gold Flake brand, citing clear infringement and passing off. This decision underscores the judicial approach to protecting well-known trademarks in India.

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

The Delhi High Court ruled that non-use of a trademark does not automatically bar injunctive relief if deceptive similarity and consumer confusion are present. The Court emphasized that trademark protection persists despite periods of non-use, provided legal criteria for an injunction are satisfied.

No more ‘Social’izing for Social chai

The Delhi High Court has restrained Social Chai from using the “SOCIAL” mark, finding trademark infringement and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The dispute highlights the importance of trademark protection in the restaurant industry.

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

The post discusses the high standards Indian courts apply to pharma trademark infringement, particularly the need to avoid consumer confusion between medicinal products. It highlights judicial reasoning and established legal principles on the scrutiny of dominant trademark parts in the pharmaceutical sector.

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on trademark infringement involving the mark “PEBBLE” used by V Guard and Crompton. The Court held that a well-known mark is not necessary for relief under Section 29(4) if reputation in India is proven.

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed CEAT’s appeal against the refusal of its FARMAX trademark, citing substantial delay and likelihood of confusion with prior marks. The court found the marks similar and the goods closely related, upholding the Registrar’s refusal.