Who is the best POSTMAN?
A two-decade fight between the Oomerbhoy family's 'POSTMAN' groundnut oil brand and a rival's 'Super Postman' mark reached the Delhi High Court, testing abandonment, deceptive similarity, and rectification.…
Deceptive Similarity
20 articles
One Letter Short of Original: A SUPREME Trademark infringement
The Supreme Industries Limited took on a PVC pipe maker’s registered “SUPREMES GOLD” mark before the Bombay High Court, testing whether a single added letter could defeat a…
The P-C Problem: Something that a Trademark Registry Search in 2001 could have prevented
The Delhi High Court has held that Intas Pharmaceuticals' mark CLAVIX constitutes pharmaceutical trademark infringement of Sanofi's blockbuster heart drug mark PLAVIX, differing by just one letter. The…
Why Owning a Logo Doesn’t Mean Owning Its Letters – the A TO Z’ Trademark Dispute
Can a pharmaceutical giant claim exclusive rights over the letters 'A' and 'Z'? The Delhi High Court, in Alkem Laboratories v. Prevego Healthcare, refused an interim injunction in…
Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!
In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that…
Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case
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…
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…
Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration, reiterates court
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
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…
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…