Passing off | Intellepedia

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

The Bengaluru court held that both Nandhini Deluxe and Hotel Nandini can continue using their trademarks as the word Nandini was found to be generic. Neither party proved exclusive rights or trademark infringement, resulting in dismissal of both claims.

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

The Delhi High Court declared VIVO a well-known trademark in India after finding infringement and passing off by an adhesive manufacturer. The Court issued a permanent injunction and set out legal criteria for determining well-known status and trademark protection under Indian law.

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal against an injunction favouring Himalaya’s prior use of the EVECARE trademark. The court held that prior user rights and likelihood of confusion prevailed over trademark class differences in this passing off case.

Design infringing water purifiers taken down from Flipkart

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction in favour of Kent RO Systems, restraining the sale of design infringing water purifiers on Flipkart. The order protects Kent’s registered design and addresses issues of passing off and market confusion.

Passing Off Suit: ‘LUX’ Trademark Protected by Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court protected the ‘LUX’ trademark in a passing off suit, granting a permanent injunction against the Defendant. This case underscores the significance of prior use and goodwill in trademark disputes.

Good Karma prevails for Upakarma yet again, court affirms injunction against Trademark infringement

The Delhi High Court affirmed an interim injunction against Rasayanam for using packaging deceptively similar to Upakarma’s registered trademark for Shilajit. The Court reiterated that overall trade dress similarity can lead to consumer confusion, justifying continued restraint at the interim stage.

“Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Himalaya, finding AB Allcare’s use of Liv-40 and similar trade dress to be deceptively similar to Liv.52. This case highlights critical aspects of trademark and trade dress protection in India.

Court Bans infringers from infringing “RAY-BAN”

The Delhi Court restrained Iswar Opticals and others from using marks deceptively similar to Ray-Ban, upholding Luxottica’s trademark rights. The judgment underscores the legal framework protecting famous marks against counterfeiting and passing off in India.

Fake Headsets? Not on Samsung’s Watch: Court Issues Permanent Injunction

The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction to Samsung against sellers of counterfeit headsets for trademark infringement and passing off. The judgment underscores the legal remedies available for brand protection in India.

Delhi High Court issues injunctions for fraudulently using IP Law Firm’s Trademark and Partner’s Name

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against unidentified defendants for fraudulently using an IP law firm’s trademark and partner’s name. The court’s order addresses trademark infringement, passing off, and cybercrime, while emphasizing the need for vigilance against such deceptive practices.