Trade Marks Act 1999 | Intellepedia

Why Owning a Logo Doesn’t Mean Owning Its Letters – the A TO Z’ Trademark Dispute

Delhi High Court trademark infringement ruling on A TO Z vs MULTIVEIN AZ pharmaceutical marks – Alkem Laboratories v. Prevego Healthcare

Can a pharmaceutical giant claim exclusive rights over the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’? The Delhi High Court, in Alkem Laboratories v. Prevego Healthcare, refused an interim injunction in an ‘A TO Z’ trademark dispute, holding the phrase descriptive and the rival mark non-infringing under Indian trademark law.

Trade Dress Passing Off: Delhi HC Restrains GAINDA from Copying HARPIC, COLIN & LIZOL Get-Up

Featured image for blog post on trade dress passing off — a magnifying glass revealing two identical blue cleaning bottle silhouettes surrounded by a burst of multicolour swatches, with the text: "Can You Own a Colour? Delhi HC Says Look at the Whole Picture"

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Grand Chemical Works from selling cleaning products under the ‘GAINDA’ mark in trade dresses copying the distinctive get-up of Reckitt’s HARPIC, COLIN, and LIZOL brands. In this trade dress passing off case, the court had to decide whether an overall similarity in bottle shape, colour scheme, and packaging layout could overwhelm a prominently different house mark and how far a design that has expired can still live on as trade dress.

Seeing Red: Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide’s Trade Dress Injunction Against Amaron

Red and green automotive batteries facing each other divided by a sharp line — illustrating the trade dress passing off dispute between Exide and Amaron at the Calcutta High Court.

Can a battery brand spend years telling consumers that red means Exide, and then quietly launch its own red product line? The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench says no, upholding Exide’s interim injunction against Amaron maker Amara Raja in a significant trade dress passing off ruling.

Can Non-Use of a Trademark Fuel a Passing Off Claim? Delhi High Court Says No

An old glass syrup bottle coated in dust and cobwebs, resting on a worn wooden shelf, its peeling label stamped with a bold red "Registered" mark - symbolising a trademark left unused and forgotten

The Delhi High Court dismissed Sana Herbals’ appeal for an interim injunction against Mohsin Dehlvi and Dehlvi Remedies, holding that prior user of the NOKUF trademark by the respondents, even if followed by decades of non-use, defeats a passing off claim where goodwill never preceded the defendant’s adoption of the mark.

OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights

Green-themed banner featuring an olive green T-shirt shown from the back on the left, a wooden board with green, black, and red olives and a small bottle of olive oil in the center, and an olive green T-shirt on the right printed with the phrase “OLIVE YOU” against a dark green background.

Delhi High Court refuses OLIVE trademark in Class 35, holding similarity with Class 25 marks and lack of proven prior user rights under Section 11.

When GM Modular Finds a Look-Alike: Trade Mark Rectification Against ‘GMW’

lat lay of modern electrical switches, sockets, and controls arranged in a grid.

Trade mark rectification under Section 57 was allowed for removal of the ‘GMW’ mark from the Register of Trade Marks. Prior user rights in ‘GM’ were recognised for identical and allied goods.

Delhi High Court Cancels Registration in JBR Trademark Dispute

A dramatic legal-themed illustration showing the Delhi High Court in the background, a judge’s gavel striking down a circular “JBR” emblem stamped in red with “CANCELLED,” symbolising the cancellation of trademark registration amid a court dispute.

The registration of the JBR trademark was cancelled after identity of marks and similarity of goods were found under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar’s order dismissing the opposition was set aside.

Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort

In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.

BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill

Blue jay birds with apparel and baseball equipment

In Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., the Delhi High Court clarified that global fame alone does not establish trademark rights in India. The ruling in BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY underscores the need to prove use and goodwill within India to succeed in cancellation and passing off claims.

SoEasy™: Not So Easy to Trademark

SoEasy shows that it is not always so easy to refuse a mark as laudatory: once the mental-leap test was applied, the SoEasy trademark comfortably cleared the distinctiveness hurdle.