Passing off | Intellepedia

Atomberg fans or Luker fans, whose “fan” are you?

Two futuristic pedestal fans labeled "Atomberg" and "Luker" face each other in a dark, dramatic setting. The Atomberg fan glows with blue neon light, while the Luker fan glows red. Wind blasts collide in the center, scattering debris and creating visible sparks, symbolizing intense rivalry or conflict.

The Bombay High Court dismissed Atomberg’s appeal against the denial of an interim injunction in a design infringement case against Luker. The court ruled that Atomberg’s fan design lacked novelty due to prior publication and was merely a trade variant.

Delhi High Court Revives Crocs’ Passing Off Suits Against Bata, Liberty Over Shape Trademark

A lineup of various footwear styles including sneakers, loafers, and a distinctive green clog resembling a Crocs shoe with cartoonish crocodile teeth, symbolizing Crocs amid competitor brands.

Delhi HC revives Crocs’ passing off suits, affirming coexistence of design and common law rights. Bata, Liberty among accused in shape trademark dispute.

Fake Volvos Got Legally Grilled: A Trademark Tale Gone Off Route

Volvo clamps down on fake buses mimicking the grille slash mark, reinforcing trademark law’s role in consumer protection and brand integrity.

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Image showing Confused shopper choosing between similar brands online with text KROMALITE OR CHROMALITE??? above a shopping cart and laptop, highlighting trademark confusion.

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court sided with FDC Limited, granting interim injunction against Palsons Derma for using “CHROMALITE”, a mark found deceptively similar to FDC’s “KROMALITE”. The decision underscores brand integrity and affirms legal safeguards against consumer confusion in pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors.

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.

“ACTIV” Trademark watch by CASTROL leads to win against deceptively similar mark

The Delhi High Court granted Castrol Limited a permanent injunction and damages for trademark and copyright infringement against defendants marketing deceptively similar lubricants. The judgment highlights the significance of protecting established trademarks and the legal remedies available in Indian courts.

A jolly win for ‘JOLLY RANCHER’ against ‘JOKY RAMPER’

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and damages to JOLLY RANCHER for trademark infringement and passing off by JOKY RAMPER. This decision underscores the importance of protecting trade dress and brand identity in the Indian confectionery market.

Not everyone’s cup of coffee! Cothas Coffee sips a trademark victory

The Bengaluru Civil Court has permanently restrained former partners of Cothas Coffee from using the mark “COTHA” for coffee businesses, citing trademark infringement and lack of bona fide use. This judgment highlights the legal standards for trademark protection and passing off under Indian law.