Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

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.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Can you reuse a discarded bottle to refill and sell your own goods or products?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., prohibiting the reuse of embossed beer bottles. The decision upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order, stating that reusing marked bottles leads to consumer deception and violates intellectual property rights. The appeal overturned the previous order, reinforcing legal protections for trademarks in the beer industry.

Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded ₹7,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance’s reputation.

Court reiterates importance of protecting consumers from confusion in case of pharma products

The Delhi High Court deliberated a trademark infringement case between Modi MundiPharma and Win Health Pharma. Allegations of deceptively similar trademarks in pharmaceutical products were raised, with the Court emphasizing the risk of consumer confusion. The application to challenge the validity of the defendant’s marks was disposed of, framing key issues on the marks’ invalidity.

“ACTIV” Trademark watch by CASTROL leads to win against deceptively similar mark

The Delhi High Court granted Castrol Limited a permanent injunction and damages for trademark and copyright infringement against defendants marketing deceptively similar lubricants. The judgment highlights the significance of protecting established trademarks and the legal remedies available in Indian courts.

Cannot drive on ‘VOLVO’ and ‘FMX’ marks’ reputation rules court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the reputation of VOLVO and FMX trademarks, granting an injunction against unauthorised use by Lamina Suspension Products Ltd. The court recognised VOLVO as a well-known mark and enforced a settlement restricting further misuse.

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

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and damages to JOLLY RANCHER for trademark infringement and passing off by JOKY RAMPER. This decision underscores the importance of protecting trade dress and brand identity in the Indian confectionery market.

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

The Bengaluru Civil Court has permanently restrained former partners of Cothas Coffee from using the mark “COTHA” for coffee businesses, citing trademark infringement and lack of bona fide use. This judgment highlights the legal standards for trademark protection and passing off under Indian law.