Passing off | Intellepedia

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.

Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation

Illustration of an actor beside a film clapperboard, with the headline ‘Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam flag use allowed; no prima facie trademark or copyright violation.

In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.

Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court

In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.

Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

Illustration of a whisky glass with ice next to the blog title 'Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.