Passing off | Intellepedia

Carnatic Karma: Bengaluru Restaurant Barred from Using ‘Carnatic’ Mark

A lively, illustrated street scene with several small cafés and people dining outdoors

The Delhi Commercial Court ruled in favour of Carnatic Café in a trademark dispute with a Bengaluru restaurant using “CARNATIC.” The Court found clear infringement and upheld the plaintiff’s exclusive rights, awarding damages and making the injunction permanent.

Promodome Trademark Dispute: Ex-Parte Injunction Granted

Colourful collage of words and the text 'Promodome Communication Secures Ex-Parte Injunction Against Promodome Digital' in white towards the right

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favour of Promodome Communication Private Limited, restraining the defendant from using identical marks and domain names. The decision highlights the Court’s handling of clear-cut trademark infringement and passing off matters.

Court Orders Transfer of Design Cancellation Petition from Controller’s Office

Madras High Court pulls a split dispute into one forum, ordering transfer of the design cancellation petition to be heard with the passing-off suit under its IPD.

Court Upholds Hi-Tech Arai’s Claim In HTA Trademark Dispute

Automotive factory with machinery and rubber oil seals in the foreground.

The Delhi High Court upheld Hi-Tech Arai’s claim in the HTA trademark dispute, granting an interim injunction against the defendants for dishonest adoption and use of fabricated evidence. The decision emphasises the significance of continuous and bona fide use in Indian trademark law.

Come On Barbie, Let Us Stop the Trademark Party

In the case of Mattel, Inc. vs. Padum Borah & Ors, the Delhi High Court barred the use of the word ‘BARBIE’ by a hospitality business, holding that the use of the iconic trademark for unrelated services was likely to cause confusion and dilute the brand. The Court observed that the Defendant’s use of identical marks with stylized pink logos constituted dishonest adoption and granted an injunction to protect the Plaintiff’s rights.

Can trademark rights exist even without continuous commercial use?

Illustration of a digital tachometer with a needle pointing to 8,000 RPM, overlaid on a blue circuit board background with flowing neon lines representing speed and technology.

Delhi Court bars use of “X1” and “X1 Racing League” over trademark infringement, upholding plaintiff’s statutory rights despite non-use.

Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration, reiterates court

Cartoon-style image inspired by the Bollywood song "Saree Ke Fall Sa," featuring a woman (Sonakshi Sinha) in a neon green and pink saree and a man (Shahid Kapoor) in a grey outfit dancing against a blue background. Both are mid-step, with expressive hand gestures. Musical notes on the left include the text “Saree ke Fall ka match kiya re...”

Delhi HC cancels ‘Ragini’ label for deceptive similarity and copied trade dress, upholding prior user rights of ‘Rani’/‘Rachna’ and ordering Section 57 rectification of the register.

Injunction in V3 Trademark Dispute Denied Over Unclean Hands

Image of two pair of hands folding clothes and garments on a table.

The Bombay High Court refused interim relief in the V3 trademark dispute, finding both parties had suppressed facts and acted inconsistently. The decision underscores that equitable remedies require parties to come with clean hands.

Aishwarya Rai Gets Court Relief Against Deepfakes, Fake Merchandise, and Online Impersonation

In the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com, the Delhi High Court restrained several websites, online sellers, and digital content creators from misusing the identity of the celebrity through unauthorised merchandise, websites, AI-generated impersonations, and obscene deepfakes.

No Trademark Infringement by Registered Proprietor

A brass camphor burner with white camphor crystals on a wooden table, surrounded by incense sticks and flower petals.

The Bombay High Court ruled that no trademark infringement or passing off was established against the registered proprietor of KARPURE and AIR KARPURE. The Court found the marks and trade dress sufficiently distinct, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for interim relief.