In the case of Kent Ro Systems Limited v. Kent Cables Private Limited, two businesses using the same mark KENT clashed over who could sell fans under that mark. One side relied on its strong reputation in water purifiers and home appliances. The other relied on earlier adoption of KENT for electrical goods and evidence of fan sales over several years. The Division Bench upheld the interim restraint against Kent RO and left the final rights to be decided at trial.
Read more about KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior useTag: prior use
Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of Trademark
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Lacoste, granting a permanent injunction against Crocodile International for trademark infringement in India. The analysis covers prior use, territoriality, and the evidentiary standards in trademark disputes.
Read more about Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of TrademarkEvecare 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.
Read more about Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation‘Prime’ Trademark Registration for Salt Cancelled based on Prior, Continuous Use
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the ‘PRIME’ trademark registration for salt due to Koteshwar Chemfood’s prior and continuous use. The court found non-use by the registrant for salt and ordered the rectification of the trademark registration.
Read more about ‘Prime’ Trademark Registration for Salt Cancelled based on Prior, Continuous UseCourt says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa Jaa
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the DOUBLE KABOOTER trademark, citing prior use and deceptive similarity with DABAL KABUTER BRAND. This case highlights the importance of accurate trademark claims and evidence in Indian law.
Read more about Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa JaaRosaire v. Baroid Sales, 218 F.2d 72 (1955)
Rosaire v. Baroid Sales examines whether prior public experiments can invalidate a patent under Section 102(a). The judgment clarifies that successful, public use of a method by others before the patent application constitutes prior knowledge, resulting in patent invalidation.
Read more about Rosaire v. Baroid Sales, 218 F.2d 72 (1955)Pidilite Industries vs. Vilas Nemichand Jain.
The Bombay High Court examined the requirements for passing off a descriptive trademark in Pidilite Industries vs Vilas Nemichand Jain. The Court held that plaintiffs must prove both prior use and secondary meaning, dismissing the claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
Read more about Pidilite Industries vs. Vilas Nemichand Jain.