Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for Politicians

Illustration of the Indian Parliament building with the national flag atop, captured during golden hour. A 'TRADEMARK' stamp is superimposed on the right side of the image, symbolising legal or intellectual property context.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the use of “Parliament” as a trademark does not violate the Emblems and Names Act if used as a common noun. This ruling enables businesses to use such terms in branding, as long as they don’t imply a direct association with governmental institutions.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Logos of Under Armour and Aero Armour beside colorful T-shirts on hangers.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.

Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?

Text graphic with the phrase “Almost There!” in playful, rounded white font outlined in red, centered on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Image showing Confused shopper choosing between similar brands online with text KROMALITE OR CHROMALITE??? above a shopping cart and laptop, highlighting trademark confusion.

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court sided with FDC Limited, granting interim injunction against Palsons Derma for using “CHROMALITE”, a mark found deceptively similar to FDC’s “KROMALITE”. The decision underscores brand integrity and affirms legal safeguards against consumer confusion in pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors.

AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims

3D rendering of a blue virus particle surrounded by yellow antibodies, illustrating an immune response at the microscopic level

The Delhi High Court has dismissed AbbVie’s appeal regarding the refusal of their patent application for an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate. The court found the proposed amendments exceeded permissible scope under the Indian Patents Act.

Blackberry’s Patent Refusal Set Aside by Delhi High Court

City skyline at night with glowing Wi-Fi symbols and connection lines, representing wireless communication and smart city connectivity

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Indian Patent Office’s refusal of Blackberry’s communication patent application. Citing a lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of the amendments and remaining objections under the Patents Act.

Captain Morgan Prevails Over Captain Blue in Trade Mark Dispute

Two sailing ships at sea with oversized bottles (blue and amber) on their decks; text reads "Who’s the Real Captain?" with a pirate hat graphic.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Diageo’s “Captain Morgan” trademark, rejecting the registration of “Captain Blue” due to deceptive similarity and absence of bona fide use. The decision reinforces the importance of prior use and consumer recognition in trademark law.

Numerical Trademarks and Their Registrability: A Review of the 2929 Case

A stylized illustration of a black steam locomotive pulling four red cargo wagons. Each wagon is labeled with a large white number: 555, 501, 91, and 2929, respectively, from front to back. The train and its wagons symbolize the addition of "2929" numerical trademark to the existing numerical trademarks registered with the Trademark office.

The Delhi High Court has recently allowed the registration of the numerical mark ‘2929’ for cosmetic products. The Court stated that numerals can function as any other trademarks if they are distinctive. In the case, the Court overturned the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks that rejected the 2929 mark on the ground that numeral marks are not distinctive and therefore, cannot be registered.

Revocation is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, rules Delhi High Court

Gavel, law books, and justice scale beside the text "Revocation Is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, Rules Delhi High Court" on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is distinct from an invalidity defence under Section 107 and remains valid post-patent expiry. The Court emphasized the broader legal impact of revocation, affirming its maintainability even when the patent has lapsed.