Deceptive Similarity | Intellepedia

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.

Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort

In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.

Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration, reiterates court

Cartoon-style image inspired by the Bollywood song "Saree Ke Fall Sa," featuring a woman (Sonakshi Sinha) in a neon green and pink saree and a man (Shahid Kapoor) in a grey outfit dancing against a blue background. Both are mid-step, with expressive hand gestures. Musical notes on the left include the text “Saree ke Fall ka match kiya re...”

Delhi HC cancels ‘Ragini’ label for deceptive similarity and copied trade dress, upholding prior user rights of ‘Rani’/‘Rachna’ and ordering Section 57 rectification of the register.

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.

The sticky trademark fight between “FIGHTER” and “FITTER”

The Calcutta High Court granted interim relief in a trademark dispute involving “FIGHTER” and “FITTER” for adhesive tapes, finding deceptive similarity. The decision highlights the court’s approach to trademark protection and irreparable harm in such cases.

Classic Fireworks’ Trademark goes up in smoke, Eagle wins over Garuda

The Madras High Court set aside the registration of the Garuda mark, citing a likelihood of confusion with SIECO’s prior Eagle trademark. The court found that the marks’ similarities could mislead consumers and rejected the defence of acquiescence.

Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

The Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates judgment addresses trademark infringement and passing off allegations in the real estate industry. The Court dismissed the suit, emphasising the need for evidence of deceptive similarity and actual confusion.

Did Emerge Classes’ mark fail the ‘passing off’ test?

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 similarity between the marks was likely to cause confusion among students.

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

The Delhi High Court ruled that non-use of a trademark does not automatically bar injunctive relief if deceptive similarity and consumer confusion are present. The Court emphasized that trademark protection persists despite periods of non-use, provided legal criteria for an injunction are satisfied.

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

The post discusses the high standards Indian courts apply to pharma trademark infringement, particularly the need to avoid consumer confusion between medicinal products. It highlights judicial reasoning and established legal principles on the scrutiny of dominant trademark parts in the pharmaceutical sector.