Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

A warning sign with a yellow background and black border displaying the text "WARNING: PROCEDURE LAPSES AHEAD" under a triangular caution symbol, indicating potential procedural errors or issues. Featured image for article: Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

In the case of M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 to address procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in accepting trademark applications. The Court found omissions in the Search Reports and noted the lack of application of mind by the Registry, prompting remand of the applications for fresh examination.

Read more about Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings Featured image for article: Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

Read more about Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

Comic-style image illustrating a courtroom scenario. On the left panel, a judge asks a person, "Have you used the trademark?" The person responds, "No, but I intend to!" In the right panel, the word "DENIED" appears boldly in red letters on a bright yellow background. Featured image for article: Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.

Read more about Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

A man carrying a box walks on a running track that leads into a web browser window, symbolizing entry into an online marketplace. Featured image for article: IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

In a trademark infringement dispute between IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) and PUMA SE (“PUMA”), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a prior injunction restraining IndiaMART from offering the PUMA trademark as an option in its seller registration drop-down menu. The Court permitted IndiaMART to continue offering trademark-based menu items and search terms, subject to obligations regarding takedown of infringing listings.

Read more about IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

"DREAM FREEDOM" Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity Featured image for article: “DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

Read more about “DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that only officers with quasi judicial authority may issue binding trademark orders under the Trade Marks Act. Orders passed by unauthorized officials were declared void, setting a significant precedent for the administration of trademark opposition proceedings in India.

Read more about Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court

Marc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants Injunction

The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction protecting Marc Salon’s salon furniture designs against GM Sales, recognising their originality and market reputation. The Court found strong evidence of passing off and copyright infringement, confirming Marc Salon’s entitlement to legal protection.

Read more about Marc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants Injunction

Updated Patent, Trade Mark, Copyright and other Acts

The post offers updated and amended versions of major Indian intellectual property statutes following the abolition of the IPAB. Downloadable resources and detailed amendment summaries are provided for reference.

Read more about Updated Patent, Trade Mark, Copyright and other Acts