Indian trademark law | Intellepedia

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.

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced an injunction against BETNEVIN, holding it infringed Glaxo’s BETNESOL trademark. The Court clarified that infringement can be determined in execution proceedings to enforce trademark decrees in India.

Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy

This post explores Haldiram’s successful legal action against trademark infringement, resulting in permanent injunctions and damages. It discusses the judicial recognition of Haldiram as a well-known mark, reflecting broader implications for brand protection in India.

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement claims over the use of ‘Smith’ for identical water purification products. The decision highlights the assessment of dominant trademark elements and the likelihood of confusion among Indian consumers.

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

The Delhi High Court ruled that selling ghee under the mark NOVYA constitutes passing off and infringement of the registered NOVA trademark. The Court’s decision imposed a permanent injunction and penalty on the Defendant for contempt, highlighting the importance of trademark protection in the dairy sector.

3 Roses, Brooke Bond, Tiche, and Ahuja Trademark Cases

This post analyses recent Indian trademark cases involving 3 Roses, Brooke Bond, Tiche, and Ahuja. It discusses counterfeiting, damages, and wrongful registration issues, providing insights for trademark owners and distributors.

Premier Vs. Barclays Premier League, Apollo Mark Well-Known Status?, and Roobini Vs. Rubam Trademark Cases

This post examines recent trademark cases from Indian courts, discussing composite mark analysis, well-known mark recognition, and the standard for confusion. Key judgments on Barclays Premier League, Apollo, and Roobini vs. Rubam offer practical guidance for trademark strategy and compliance.