Trademarks | Intellepedia

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.

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement claims over the use of ‘Smith’ for identical water purification products. The decision highlights the assessment of dominant trademark elements and the likelihood of confusion among Indian consumers.

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the FIELDMARSHAL trademark belongs to PM Diesel, recognising its prior, continuous, and legitimate use. Thukral’s claims were dismissed, and reliefs including actual litigation costs and registration of pending applications were granted to PM Diesel.

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim injunction plea, holding that the use of the common surname JINDAL cannot be monopolised under trademark law. The court found no infringement or passing off, as the impugned mark was sufficiently distinct.

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of the TOWER trademark on dry fruits, finding a risk of consumer confusion and breach of a prior undertaking. The order clarifies trademark enforcement boundaries and highlights the importance of respecting agreed limitations in Indian IP disputes.

The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

The Delhi High Court remitted the ‘Bharat’ trademark application to the Examiner for reconsideration, focusing on unresolved Section 11(1) objections. The Court clarified that the application must be advertised, preserving the statutory right of third parties to object before registration.