DISPOWAY Trademark Disposal Set Aside: Hearing Notice Not Received
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of the DISPOWAY trademark application due to non-receipt of the hearing notice. The case has been remanded for a fresh…
833 articles
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of the DISPOWAY trademark application due to non-receipt of the hearing notice. The case has been remanded for a fresh…
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Registrar's decision in a trademark dispute involving similar elephant marks for tea products. The court held that the respondent's mark was…
The Indian IP Office has initiated a re-evaluation of trademark applications handled by QCI-appointed officers. This two-tier review seeks legal compliance and swift resolution, with designated officers and…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…