Who Owns the Castle?
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark passing off dispute over the CASTLE mark in the beer industry. The court granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, preventing the…
37 articles
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark passing off dispute over the CASTLE mark in the beer industry. The court granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, preventing the…
This post examines the landmark decision affirming the descendibility of Elvis Presley's right of publicity. It highlights how the court recognised the estate's authority to control and exploit…
This post analyses the Mariappan vs AR Safiullah case on temporary injunctions in Indian patent disputes. The court scrutinised inventive step and the requirements for interim relief, ultimately…
This post provides a detailed analysis of the Tolbutamide patent infringement case between Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning and Unichem Laboratories. It discusses the Court's interpretation of…
This case evaluates a patent infringement dispute concerning hollow ware manufacturing processes in India. The Court compared both parties' methods, ultimately finding no infringement due to significant procedural…
This post analytically discusses the Yahoo trademark case, addressing the legal principles of passing off and domain name infringement in India. It provides a structured overview of the…
This article discusses the legal dispute over copyright assignment and sequel rights in the Sarkar film series. The Bombay High Court held that remake rights were granted to…
This post examines the complexities of royalty rights for sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works in India. It provides a legal analysis of significant court decisions…
Phyllis Schlafly's opposition to her nephew's 'Schlafly Beer' trademark was rejected by the US Trademark Board. The Board held that the mark had acquired distinctiveness after years of…
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Toyota in the long-standing Prius trademark dispute. The judgment found the defendants’ use of the mark dishonest and detrimental to…