Trademark Dispute | Intellepedia

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.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.

‘Big Dipper’ trademark infringement case, ruling on transborder reputation and importers’ rights

The Delhi High Court ruled on a trademark dispute between ‘Big Dipper’ and ‘Big Deeper,’ setting aside an ex parte injunction. The case centered on the assertion of transborder reputation by importers of the ‘Big Dipper’ mark. The Court relied on precedent to determine that mere global reputation is insufficient to claim trademark protection in India. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Classic Fireworks’ Trademark goes up in smoke, Eagle wins over Garuda

The Madras High Court set aside the registration of the Garuda mark, citing a likelihood of confusion with SIECO’s prior Eagle trademark. The court found that the marks’ similarities could mislead consumers and rejected the defence of acquiescence.

“CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

The Delhi High Court dismissed L’Oréal’s appeal against the CLARIWASH trademark, finding no deceptive similarity or grounds for cancellation. Procedural errors during examination were not considered sufficient for removal, and the respondent’s prior use was recognised.