Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in LAHORI ZEERA Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi HC restrains Balaji Foods from using the LAHOR ZEERA mark, upholding Archian Foods’ IP rights over LAHORI ZEERA’s trademark, label, and design.

Injunction in V3 Trademark Dispute Denied Over Unclean Hands

Image of two pair of hands folding clothes and garments on a table.

The Bombay High Court refused interim relief in the V3 trademark dispute, finding both parties had suppressed facts and acted inconsistently. The decision underscores that equitable remedies require parties to come with clean hands.

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.

No Trademark Infringement by Registered Proprietor

A brass camphor burner with white camphor crystals on a wooden table, surrounded by incense sticks and flower petals.

The Bombay High Court ruled that no trademark infringement or passing off was established against the registered proprietor of KARPURE and AIR KARPURE. The Court found the marks and trade dress sufficiently distinct, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for interim relief.

Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

Illustration of a whisky glass with ice next to the blog title 'Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.

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.