Trademarks | Intellepedia

Delhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI mark

Banner with ayurvedic skincare items and title on Khadi Veda case

An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in a trade mark infringement suit concerning KVIC’s KHADI mark. Use of KHADI VEDA and related domain names and online listings was restrained.

You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly

In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.

If You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access

In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench provided a structured analysis of what constitutes territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement actions after examining the plaintiff’s principal office, online listings, and the role of marketing agreements.

BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill

Blue jay birds with apparel and baseball equipment

In Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., the Delhi High Court clarified that global fame alone does not establish trademark rights in India. The ruling in BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY underscores the need to prove use and goodwill within India to succeed in cancellation and passing off claims.

“Little Hearts”, Big Infringement: Delhi HC Injunction

Banner with the text “Little Hearts”, Big Infringement: Delhi High Court’s Ad-Interim Injunction Explained beside a coffee mug and scattered red heart-shaped biscuits.

An ad interim injunction was granted by the Delhi High Court in a dispute concerning the “Little Hearts” mark, 3D biscuit shape, trade dress and product images. Amazon was directed to delist the infringing listings pending further orders.

From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup Story

In the case of ITC Limited & Anr. vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, the court declined to restrain a former collaborator from using the restaurant brand ‘DAKSHIN’. Despite ITC’s registrations, the court held that past agreements, shared use, and acquiescence over decades created factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

SoEasy™: Not So Easy to Trademark

SoEasy shows that it is not always so easy to refuse a mark as laudatory: once the mental-leap test was applied, the SoEasy trademark comfortably cleared the distinctiveness hurdle.

Indian Express vs New Indian Express: Who Owns The Trademark?

In the case of The Indian Express P Ltd vs Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt Ltd, the Bombay High Court considered the terms of a court-recorded settlement to decide if the Defendant’s use of a permitted title in Mumbai breached trademark rights held by the Plaintiff.

UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked

In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.

Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case between Shalimar Chemical Works and Edible Products, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—used for products sold under the Shalimar mark was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off, even if the rival product carried a different brand name.