Trade Marks Act | Intellepedia

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

Court 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.

How many of these brands do you know?

This post explores the recognition of well known trademarks in India, detailing the legal framework, criteria, and recent brands added to the official list. It also discusses the advantages and implications of this status for brand owners.

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.

Vitiation of IPAB – Changes under the Trade Marks Act

The abolition of IPAB under the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 has transferred its powers under the Trade Marks Act to the Registrar and High Courts. This post analyses the resulting legal changes and their implications for trademark registration, dispute resolution, and appellate processes.

Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 and amendments to the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 has resulted in the abolition of the Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and transferred its powers to the High Courts and Registrar. This post provides an analytical summary of the legislative amendments and their implications for trademark law in India.

Court Re-Emphasizes the Exclusion of Generic Terms from Registration

The Madras High Court reiterated that generic terms in trademarks cannot be monopolized and must be assessed as part of the whole mark. The Court set aside the IPAB’s order to remove Rhizome’s mark, clarifying the application of the Trade Marks Act in such disputes.