Trademarks | Intellepedia

Horizontal to Vertical inversion of letters not a ‘substantial amendment’ of trademark

Delhi High Court sets aside Registrar’s cancellation of a trademark, ruling that vertical inversion of letters is not a substantial amendment under trademark law.

Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court

Image showing Industrial factory setting with conveyor belts and workers handling tyres and materials, overlaid with the text 'Dunlop Trademark Dispute' and gavel icons, symbolising a legal dispute over trademark rights.

In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.

Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!

Two cars racing side-by-side toward a checkered finish line with a waving finish flag; one car with FI MONEY written on it leads as it speed past the car with F1 on it.

The Delhi High Court cancelled the F1 trademark held by Formula One in Class 36 for non-use in India, following Epifi’s rectification petition. The decision reaffirms that trademark rights require genuine and ongoing use.

‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for Politicians

Illustration of the Indian Parliament building with the national flag atop, captured during golden hour. A 'TRADEMARK' stamp is superimposed on the right side of the image, symbolising legal or intellectual property context.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the use of “Parliament” as a trademark does not violate the Emblems and Names Act if used as a common noun. This ruling enables businesses to use such terms in branding, as long as they don’t imply a direct association with governmental institutions.

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.