Indian trademark law | Intellepedia

‘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.

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.