In the case of ITC Limited & Anr. vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, the court declined to restrain a former collaborator from using the restaurant brand ‘DAKSHIN’. Despite ITC’s registrations, the court held that past agreements, shared use, and acquiescence over decades created factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.
Read more about From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup StoryTag: Delhi High Court
UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked
In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.
Read more about UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still BlockedBirkin Bag’s Three-Dimensional Trade Dress Recognised as Well-Known by Delhi High Court
In the case of Hermes International & Anr vs Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr, the Delhi High Court examined whether the shape and configuration of the Birkin bag—registered as a three-dimensional mark—met the requirements for being declared a well-known trademark. The court found that the trade dress had acquired widespread recognition in the luxury fashion market among the relevant public making it well known.
Read more about Birkin Bag’s Three-Dimensional Trade Dress Recognised as Well-Known by Delhi High CourtDr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk
The Delhi High Court refused Novo Nordisk interim relief against Dr Reddy’s, finding that the Semaglutide species patent faces serious validity challenges in light of the earlier genus patent. The Court allowed Dr Reddy’s to continue manufacturing Semaglutide in India solely for export to non-patent jurisdictions, with no domestic sales.
Read more about Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo NordiskDescriptiveness and Registrability of Composite Marks in Cancellation Proceedings
This post analyses a Delhi High Court decision on the registrability of composite marks in trademark cancellation proceedings. It underscores the importance of assessing marks as a whole and the evidentiary role of continuous use in such disputes.
Read more about Descriptiveness and Registrability of Composite Marks in Cancellation ProceedingsDelhi High Court Grants Patent Application Restoration After Agent’s Error
Delhi High Court restores Synertec’s patent application, ruling that agent error, not intent, caused the missed Form-18 deadline.
Read more about Delhi High Court Grants Patent Application Restoration After Agent’s ErrorHimalaya Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Grants Injunction
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Himalaya Wellness, restraining Greenland Trading from using deceptively similar marks for ayurvedic products. The Court found a clear risk of consumer confusion and dilution of the well-known HIMALAYA trademark.
Read more about Himalaya Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Grants InjunctionSection 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent Claims
The Delhi High Court reiterated that a properly drafted pharmaceutical composition claim cannot be dismissed as a “method of treatment” under Section 3(i), and has sent Medilabo’s neurodegenerative drug application back for a full, merits-based examination.
Read more about Section 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent ClaimsDelhi HC Grants Injunction in Adidas Counterfeit Socks Case
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction to Adidas in a trademark infringement and passing-off case concerning counterfeit socks. The Court also appointed a Local Commissioner for seizure and inspection, reinforcing strong protection against IP violations.
Read more about Delhi HC Grants Injunction in Adidas Counterfeit Socks CaseBADAL Trademark Rectification and Assignment Fraud
The Delhi High Court rejected a rectification petition challenging the assignment of the BADAL trademark on grounds of alleged fraud. The Court held that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to prove fraud or invalidate the registration, upholding the mark’s validity.
Read more about BADAL Trademark Rectification and Assignment Fraud