Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

A jolly win for ‘JOLLY RANCHER’ against ‘JOKY RAMPER’

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction and awarded damages to Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company in a trademark infringement and passing off case against Sarju Confectionery LLP. The defendant was found guilty of exploiting the goodwill associated with the “JOLLY RANCHER” mark by using a deceptively similar mark, “JOKY RAMPER,” and packaging.

Not everyone’s cup of coffee! Cothas Coffee sips a trademark victory

The Bengaluru Court ruled in favor of Cothas Coffee in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants for using “COTHA.” The case highlights the importance of trademark rights and adherence to legal agreements in competitive business practices.

Trademark Win: Swatch Group’s careful watch leads to Permanent Injunction

The Patiala House Courts in New Delhi delivered a decisive ruling in favor of Swatch Group, issuing a permanent injunction against four traders for trademark infringement and passing off. The court ordered the destruction of counterfeit goods and awarded costs to the plaintiffs, affirming their statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

ITC obtains injunction against former owners of NIMYLE and JOR-POWR Trademarks

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to ITC Limited, restraining Arpita Agro from using the deceptively similar trademark “POWRNYM.” The case highlights issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and contractual obligations, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of a deceptively similar COCOMELON trademark registered by the respondent. Treasure Studio Inc., the creators of the globally recognized children’s brand, successfully secured relief, ensuring stronger protection for its distinctive trademark and intellectual property rights.

Brokering peace? “Nobroker” says NO to “NotBroker”

In a decisive judgment, NoBroker Technologies secured a permanent injunction against NotBroker Property Management for infringing its trademarks ‘%NOBROKER’ and ‘NoBrokerHood.’ The Court found NotBroker’s use of the mark ‘NOT BROKER’ and the domain ‘notbroker.com’ deceptively similar, granting relief to NoBroker, including removal of the infringing domain.

Real blow to infringers by L’Oreal, court issues injunction for Trademark infringement

The Delhi Commercial Court granted L’Oreal a permanent injunction against M/s Oneness Enterprises for importing counterfeit goods bearing L’Oreal’s trademarks. The Court also restrained Customs Offices from releasing the seized goods and directed their destruction under applicable rules, ensuring strong protection of L’Oreal’s intellectual property rights.

“TATA COPPER+ WATER” Trademark Infringement Injuncted with Nominal Damages

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Sons, preventing the use of trademarks and trade dress similar to “TATA COPPER+ WATER.” The defendant ceased infringement and nominal damages of ₹1,00,000 were awarded, acknowledging the defendant’s cooperation and first-time offense.

Rummy Culture and Gameskraft Trademarks: Order to Take Down Infringing Online Gaming Websites and Apps

The Delhi High Court granted Gameskraft Technologies an interim injunction against websites infringing on its trademarks, including RummyCulture, ordering a takedown and domain block. The order protects Gameskraft’s IP, restraining defendants from further infringement or using SEO keywords linked to Gameskraft’s trademarks.

Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

In a trademark dispute between Sankalp Constructions and Shankalp Associates, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of trademark infringement. Finding no deceptive similarity, it ruled that Shankalp’s use of its trade name did not cause confusion or infringe on Sankalp’s registered mark. This case clarifies the importance of evidence in proving brand name similarity in trademark law.