Passing off | Intellepedia

You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly

In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.

If You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access

In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench provided a structured analysis of what constitutes territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement actions after examining the plaintiff’s principal office, online listings, and the role of marketing agreements.

BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill

Blue jay birds with apparel and baseball equipment

In Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., the Delhi High Court clarified that global fame alone does not establish trademark rights in India. The ruling in BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY underscores the need to prove use and goodwill within India to succeed in cancellation and passing off claims.

UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked

In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.

Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case between Shalimar Chemical Works and Edible Products, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—used for products sold under the Shalimar mark was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off, even if the rival product carried a different brand name.

Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case of Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off.

Aceclofenac Marks and the Limits of Exclusivity: The ACECLO Dispute

In the case of ACECLO versus ACECLOHEAL, aceclofenac-derived branding ran into Section 13 and the publici juris problem. Registration didn’t rescue exclusivity, and the visual and market differences did the rest.

Trademark Trouble Brewing: What ‘COX 5001’ Got Wrong About ‘HAYWARDS 5000′

A bottle of Haywards 5000 beer placed centrally on a rustic stone table, surrounded by ripe red tomatoes, herbs, and a metal pot, styled like a still-life painting with warm, earthy tones.

Bombay High Court grants AB Inbev a permanent injunction against Jagpin’s “COX 5001” mark, ruling it infringes the “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” trademarks.

Himalaya Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Grants Injunction

Medicinal plants and mortar pestles, set in a light green background below the text, 'Himalaya Trademark Infringement– Delhi High Court'

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Himalaya Wellness, restraining Greenland Trading from using deceptively similar marks for ayurvedic products. The Court found a clear risk of consumer confusion and dilution of the well-known HIMALAYA trademark.

Film Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy Fails Copyright Test: Title, Script, and Ads Not Infringing

Yellow banner with a 3D clipboard showing a red X and check marks, alongside the text “Film Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy Fails Copyright Test: Title, Script, and Ads Not Infringing.

In the case of Everest Entertainment LLP vs. Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar, the Bombay High Court considered whether copyright subsists in the title Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy, and whether the defendants infringed the script or promotional content of the film. The Court found no substantial reproduction of the script or advertisements, and held that copyright protection does not extend to the film’s title.