Trademark Dispute | Intellepedia

KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior use

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.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Promodome Trademark Dispute: Ex-Parte Injunction Granted

Colourful collage of words and the text 'Promodome Communication Secures Ex-Parte Injunction Against Promodome Digital' in white towards the right

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favour of Promodome Communication Private Limited, restraining the defendant from using identical marks and domain names. The decision highlights the Court’s handling of clear-cut trademark infringement and passing off matters.

Winning the Race for ‘X1’: A Trademark Dispute Resolved

X1-branded jetski races ahead on a track as cars chase.

The Delhi District Court resolved the X1 trademark dispute between Ashish Aggarwal and M/s Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd by granting a permanent injunction. The judgment upholds the enforceability of trademark rights in sports event branding and addresses issues of infringement, jurisdiction, and profits.

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Image showing Confused shopper choosing between similar brands online with text KROMALITE OR CHROMALITE??? above a shopping cart and laptop, highlighting trademark confusion.

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court sided with FDC Limited, granting interim injunction against Palsons Derma for using “CHROMALITE”, a mark found deceptively similar to FDC’s “KROMALITE”. The decision underscores brand integrity and affirms legal safeguards against consumer confusion in pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors.

Manash Lifestyle’s “FACES” Trademark Secured in Court

Makeup items with text about Delhi HC removing 'FACES BY SHABINA KUNDIAL' trademark.

Delhi High Court upholds FACES trademark, orders to remove deceptive ‘FACES BY SHABINA KUNDIAL’ mark registered under Class 44.

Non Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi High Court favors Zepto

Non-Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi HC Favors Zepto

The Delhi High Court, in an ex-parte decision, ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark registered by Mohammad Arshad in Class 35, upholding Kiranakart’s claim of non-use. The judgment affirms that trademarks must be actively used to retain validity under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act.

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

Counterfeit books sold on Amazon, Allahabad Law Agency obtains injunction

In Allahabad Law Agency v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against online sellers distributing counterfeit copies of Law of Torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia. The Court found copyright and trademark infringement but declined to award damages, granting nominal costs of Rs. 15,000 to the Plaintiff.