Indian trademark law | Intellepedia

Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

The Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates judgment addresses trademark infringement and passing off allegations in the real estate industry. The Court dismissed the suit, emphasising the need for evidence of deceptive similarity and actual confusion.

“VARUN” scoops up an icy win against “ARUN”, court affirms co-existence of Trademarks

The Madras High Court upheld the coexistence of ARUN and VARUN trademarks, citing lack of evidence of confusion and acquired distinctiveness. The petition for cancellation of the VARUN mark was dismissed, allowing both marks to remain in use.

CIT Trademark: Coimbatore Institute of Technology Prevails over Chennai Institute of Technology

The Madras High Court ruled that Coimbatore Institute of Technology’s prior use entitled it to exclusive rights over the CIT trademark. The court ordered the removal of the respondent’s registration, highlighting the importance of distinctiveness and transparency in trademark disputes.

SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

The Madras High Court dismissed Scrum Alliance’s petition for rectification of the CSM trademark, citing insufficient proof of prior use and upholding honest and concurrent use by the respondent. The decision clarifies the application of Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act regarding concurrent rights.

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.