Trademarks | Intellepedia

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.

Sweet victory and Sweeter rewards – court declares NUTELLA well-known Trademark

Delhi HC grants Ferrero ₹30 lakh in damages, declaring ‘NUTELLA’ a well-known trademark in a major counterfeit case against M.B. Enterprises.

ORSL vs ERSI: Delhi Court’s Juicy ruling in Johnson & Johnson ORSL Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi HC awards Rs. 1.21 cr to J&J in the ORSL trademark case against ERSI & ElectroORS for deceptive similarity and injunction violations.

PAAKASHALA Brand Wins Trademark Injunction: Karnataka HC Rules Against Descriptive Use Defense

An artistic and colorful image of various fruits, vegetables, and food items flying or exploding outward from the center. The composition includes items like tomatoes, bell peppers, onions, broccoli, pineapple, bread rolls, and leafy greens, all suspended mid-air. There are also stylized humanoid food figures interacting with the scene, creating a lively and surreal food battle effect against a bright background.

In a dispute over the restaurant brand PAAKASHALA, the Karnataka High Court restrained a Mysuru outlet from using a similar name. The Court found that the plaintiff, a registered trademark owner, had made out a prima facie case of infringement.

Technical Delay Cannot Lead to Trademark Opposition Abandonment

The Delhi High Court held that procedural lapses, such as failing to file an original affidavit on time, cannot justify abandonment of trademark opposition if there is clear intent to comply. The judgment underscores the primacy of substantive rights over minor technicalities in Indian trademark law.

Fake Volvos Got Legally Grilled: A Trademark Tale Gone Off Route

Volvo clamps down on fake buses mimicking the grille slash mark, reinforcing trademark law’s role in consumer protection and brand integrity.

Trademark Registrations are Pan-India

A satellite view of India at night with illuminated cities, highlighting the phrase "Trademarks are PAN INDIA".

The High Court reinstated an injunction in favour of Rainbow Hospitals, confirming that trademark registrations are pan-India in scope and shield brand owners from dishonest adopters, irrespective of geographical overlap.

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.