Indian trademark law | Intellepedia

Trademarks and Family Disputes: Without an Agreement in Writing, Trademarks Cannot be Deemed to be Assigned

The Delhi High Court held that without a written agreement, trademarks cannot be assigned in family disputes. The court restored exclusive rights to the registered proprietor, reinforcing the importance of proper legal documentation for trademark transfers in India.

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

The Bengaluru court held that both Nandhini Deluxe and Hotel Nandini can continue using their trademarks as the word Nandini was found to be generic. Neither party proved exclusive rights or trademark infringement, resulting in dismissal of both claims.

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal against an injunction favouring Himalaya’s prior use of the EVECARE trademark. The court held that prior user rights and likelihood of confusion prevailed over trademark class differences in this passing off case.

‘Prime’ Trademark Registration for Salt Cancelled based on Prior, Continuous Use

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the ‘PRIME’ trademark registration for salt due to Koteshwar Chemfood’s prior and continuous use. The court found non-use by the registrant for salt and ordered the rectification of the trademark registration.

“Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Himalaya, finding AB Allcare’s use of Liv-40 and similar trade dress to be deceptively similar to Liv.52. This case highlights critical aspects of trademark and trade dress protection in India.

Century Ply’s claims of Trademark infringement do not fly, rules court

The Delhi Tis Hazari Court rejected Century Ply’s trademark infringement claims against Balaji Ply, citing lack of direct evidence and reliance on hearsay. The court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the defendant after finding the plaintiff unable to prove its allegations.

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court clarified that trademark infringement requires a holistic comparison of marks and their respective goods or services. The court found no likelihood of confusion between Unisn and Unison, highlighting the need to consider all circumstances and the anti-dissection rule in such cases.

Whose mark got the ‘X’ Factor? Relaxo Footwear vs XS Brands

The Delhi High Court dismissed Relaxo Footwear’s claim over the ‘X’ device mark against XS Brands, highlighting the significance of coexistence and lack of confusion in trademark disputes. The post discusses the Court’s structured analysis of both parties’ arguments and the broader implications for mark distinctiveness.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court granted MRF a permanent injunction and nominal damages against Powermax for trademark and copyright infringement. The judgment underscores the legal significance of safeguarding established trademarks in India.

Another Dis’connected’ order by the registry, set aside by the Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a trademark refusal for Electronica India due to lack of reasoning and significant procedural lapses, instructing the registry to provide a fresh hearing. The order highlights the importance of fair hearing practices in Indian trademark law.