Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

Sweet victory and Sweeter rewards – court declares NUTELLA well-known Trademark

Delhi HC grants Ferrero ₹30 lakh in damages, declaring ‘NUTELLA’ a well-known trademark in a major counterfeit case against M.B. Enterprises.

ORSL vs ERSI: Delhi Court’s Juicy ruling in Johnson & Johnson ORSL Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi HC awards Rs. 1.21 cr to J&J in the ORSL trademark case against ERSI & ElectroORS for deceptive similarity and injunction violations.

Fake Volvos Got Legally Grilled: A Trademark Tale Gone Off Route

Volvo clamps down on fake buses mimicking the grille slash mark, reinforcing trademark law’s role in consumer protection and brand integrity.

Trademark Registrations are Pan-India

A satellite view of India at night with illuminated cities, highlighting the phrase "Trademarks are PAN INDIA".

The High Court reinstated an injunction in favour of Rainbow Hospitals, confirming that trademark registrations are pan-India in scope and shield brand owners from dishonest adopters, irrespective of geographical overlap.

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.

Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Logos of Under Armour and Aero Armour beside colorful T-shirts on hangers.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.

Wipro Secures Court Victory Against Trademark Infringement

Illustration with headline "Wipro Prevails in Court Against Fraudulent Use of Its Trademark" in blue capital letters. On the right, a stylized graphic shows a person climbing a bar chart with an upward trend line, reaching for a trophy with a star.

Wipro achieved a legal victory in Bangalore District Court against trademark infringement. The Court granted a permanent injunction to protect Wipro’s brand from fraudulent online schemes.

PETER ENGLAND joins India’s list of Well-Known Trademarks

Clothing store hangers lined up on a rack with warm lighting in the background; text on the right reads ““PETER ENGLAND” joins India’s list of Well-Known Trademarks” with a clapping hand icon.

Delhi High Court declares “PETER ENGLAND” a well-known trademark, citing strong brand presence and trademark infringement by the defendants.

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.

“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.