Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

A tipsy decision by the Trademark office? Court clarifies on geographical association of TAJPURIYA

A simple black and white illustration of two silhouetted figures standing together. One speech bubble says “SO?” while another larger bubble says “TAJPURIYA? That’s a tribe!” The image appears to represent a discussion or disagreement about whether the word TAJPURIYA refers to a tribal name.

In the case of M/S Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, a liquor company applied to register the mark TAJPURIYA for alcoholic beverages. The Trade Marks Office first objected that the mark was geographical. However, in the final refusal order, it stated that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe associated with alcohol rituals. The High Court examined whether such a change in grounds was legally valid.

Trademark: ‘One For All’, Distinct For One? Delhi High Court Says Yes

In the case of Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL” for educational publications in Class 16. The Registrar refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was common, laudatory, and lacked distinctiveness. The Single Judge upheld the refusal. The Division Bench examined whether the expression was inherently distinctive or merely descriptive in the context of books.

Should a pre-grant notice be issued before patent grant to facilitate filing of divisional applications? Court clarifies

Minimalist office interior with wooden shelves and books on a white wall, featuring a bold “Divide & Conquer” wall graphic under a hanging lamp above a wooden desk.

Delhi High Court clarifies that no pre-grant notice is required under Section 43 and divisional applications must be filed before patent grant.

AI, Identity & Injunctions: The Vivek Anand Oberoi Personality Rights Case

A personality rights injunction was granted by the Delhi High Court in favour of Vivek Anand Oberoi against alleged AI deepfakes and unauthorised use of his persona. Takedown and intermediary disclosure directions were issued.

When GM Modular Finds a Look-Alike: Trade Mark Rectification Against ‘GMW’

lat lay of modern electrical switches, sockets, and controls arranged in a grid.

Trade mark rectification under Section 57 was allowed for removal of the ‘GMW’ mark from the Register of Trade Marks. Prior user rights in ‘GM’ were recognised for identical and allied goods.

Intellepedia’s Top Trademark Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

Discover key 2025 Indian trademark rulings on infringement, trade dress, intermediary liability, and procedural fairness in this roundup from Intellepedia.

Delhi High Court Cancels Registration in JBR Trademark Dispute

A dramatic legal-themed illustration showing the Delhi High Court in the background, a judge’s gavel striking down a circular “JBR” emblem stamped in red with “CANCELLED,” symbolising the cancellation of trademark registration amid a court dispute.

The registration of the JBR trademark was cancelled after identity of marks and similarity of goods were found under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar’s order dismissing the opposition was set aside.

‘In Vitro Detection’ Still Diagnostic: Nematode Cancer Test Barred under Section 3(i)

Close-up of a dictionary page with the word “Diagnosis” highlighted in bright green by a chisel-tip highlighter, emphasizing the term against surrounding text.

In Hirotsu Bio Science v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that branding a process as “in vitro detection” does not rescue it from Section 3(i) when, in substance, it diagnoses cancer. The nematode-based urine test was thus refused as an excluded diagnostic method.

Same MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped In

In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the court examined whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them online could be justified as resale, or whether such conduct crossed into trade mark infringement, trade dress misuse, and passing off.

You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly

In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.