Trademarks | Intellepedia

No Trademark Infringement by Registered Proprietor

A brass camphor burner with white camphor crystals on a wooden table, surrounded by incense sticks and flower petals.

The Bombay High Court ruled that no trademark infringement or passing off was established against the registered proprietor of KARPURE and AIR KARPURE. The Court found the marks and trade dress sufficiently distinct, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for interim relief.

Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation

Illustration of an actor beside a film clapperboard, with the headline ‘Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam flag use allowed; no prima facie trademark or copyright violation.

In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.

Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court

In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.

Newer ‘Blue-Jay’ Mark knocked off the League

The Delhi High Court has struck down the ‘BLUE-JAY’ trademark, siding with Major League Baseball against PMS Creations. The Court held that MLB’s prior use and transborder reputation trumped the respondents’ registration, which was tainted by dishonesty and bad faith.

Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

Illustration of a whisky glass with ice next to the blog title 'Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.

Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

A warning sign with a yellow background and black border displaying the text "WARNING: PROCEDURE LAPSES AHEAD" under a triangular caution symbol, indicating potential procedural errors or issues.

In the case of M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 to address procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in accepting trademark applications. The Court found omissions in the Search Reports and noted the lack of application of mind by the Registry, prompting remand of the applications for fresh examination.

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

Comic-style image illustrating a courtroom scenario. On the left panel, a judge asks a person, "Have you used the trademark?" The person responds, "No, but I intend to!" In the right panel, the word "DENIED" appears boldly in red letters on a bright yellow background.

In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.