OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights
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.
35 articles
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.
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
In the case of ACECLO versus ACECLOHEAL, aceclofenac-derived branding ran into Section 13 and the publici juris problem. Registration didn’t rescue exclusivity, and the visual and market differences…
This post analyses a Delhi High Court decision on the registrability of composite marks in trademark cancellation proceedings. It underscores the importance of assessing marks as a whole…
This note summarizes the Trade Marks Registry’s ‘Order of the Rose’ on registration of an olfactory trademark in India for rose-scented tyres. It explains the objections, the IIIT…
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…