Trademarks | Intellepedia

IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

A man carrying a box walks on a running track that leads into a web browser window, symbolizing entry into an online marketplace.

In a trademark infringement dispute between IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) and PUMA SE (“PUMA”), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a prior injunction restraining IndiaMART from offering the PUMA trademark as an option in its seller registration drop-down menu. The Court permitted IndiaMART to continue offering trademark-based menu items and search terms, subject to obligations regarding takedown of infringing listings.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Logos of Under Armour and Aero Armour beside colorful T-shirts on hangers.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Image showing Confused shopper choosing between similar brands online with text KROMALITE OR CHROMALITE??? above a shopping cart and laptop, highlighting trademark confusion.

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court sided with FDC Limited, granting interim injunction against Palsons Derma for using “CHROMALITE”, a mark found deceptively similar to FDC’s “KROMALITE”. The decision underscores brand integrity and affirms legal safeguards against consumer confusion in pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors.

Captain Morgan Prevails Over Captain Blue in Trade Mark Dispute

Two sailing ships at sea with oversized bottles (blue and amber) on their decks; text reads "Who’s the Real Captain?" with a pirate hat graphic.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Diageo’s “Captain Morgan” trademark, rejecting the registration of “Captain Blue” due to deceptive similarity and absence of bona fide use. The decision reinforces the importance of prior use and consumer recognition in trademark law.

Trademark Opposition Fails Without Territorial Use Evidence

Illustration with a curious face and large question mark, asking “Can you lose a trademark without using it everywhere?” on a blue-green gradient background.

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the registration of the ‘JAI HANUMAN’ trademark, underscoring the importance of territorial use evidence in opposition cases. Despite claiming prior use, the appellant failed to show usage in South India, leading to the Court affirming the Registry’s decision.

Decades of Himalaya’s Goodwill Shield PILEX Trademark from Deceptive Use

Text says “PILEX” by Himalaya Stands Tall Against Imitators, with mountains in the background and a hand holding a pill on the right.

The Calcutta High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division upheld Himalaya’s trademark “PILEX”, citing decades of goodwill and market presence. With the defendants ceasing use and offering an unconditional undertaking, the Court ordered relief and reinforced the legal significance of brand protection in pharmaceuticals.

Wipro Secures Court Victory Against Trademark Infringement

Illustration with headline "Wipro Prevails in Court Against Fraudulent Use of Its Trademark" in blue capital letters. On the right, a stylized graphic shows a person climbing a bar chart with an upward trend line, reaching for a trophy with a star.

Wipro achieved a legal victory in Bangalore District Court against trademark infringement. The Court granted a permanent injunction to protect Wipro’s brand from fraudulent online schemes.

Numerical Trademarks and Their Registrability: A Review of the 2929 Case

A stylized illustration of a black steam locomotive pulling four red cargo wagons. Each wagon is labeled with a large white number: 555, 501, 91, and 2929, respectively, from front to back. The train and its wagons symbolize the addition of "2929" numerical trademark to the existing numerical trademarks registered with the Trademark office.

The Delhi High Court has recently allowed the registration of the numerical mark ‘2929’ for cosmetic products. The Court stated that numerals can function as any other trademarks if they are distinctive. In the case, the Court overturned the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks that rejected the 2929 mark on the ground that numeral marks are not distinctive and therefore, cannot be registered.

BananaIP Counsels Invites Applications for the Position of Trademark Associate

BananaIP Invites Applications for the Position of Trademark Associate

BananaIP Counsels in Bangalore is hiring a Trademark Associate. The role involves managing trademark matters and supporting strategic services. Apply now if you meet the eligibility criteria.