Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

Century Ply’s claims of Trademark infringement do not fly, rules court

The Delhi Tis Hazari Court rejected Century Ply’s trademark infringement claims against Balaji Ply, citing lack of direct evidence and reliance on hearsay. The court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the defendant after finding the plaintiff unable to prove its allegations.

Delhi High Court issues injunctions for fraudulently using IP Law Firm’s Trademark and Partner’s Name

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against unidentified defendants for fraudulently using an IP law firm’s trademark and partner’s name. The court’s order addresses trademark infringement, passing off, and cybercrime, while emphasizing the need for vigilance against such deceptive practices.

Himalayan Organics Crumbles Before the Trademark Mountain of Himalaya

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Himalaya in its trademark dispute with Vlado Sky over the “HIMALAYAN ORGANICS” mark. The order cited probable consumer confusion and risk of dilution of Himalaya’s established brand.

Thou shall not ‘STEEL’ a trademark, says court

The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Prakash Ferrous Industries, granting them an injunction over the TIRUMALA trademark for TMT steel bars. The judgment reinforces the importance of prior use and documentary proof in Indian trademark law.

Rebanta Healthcare gets hurt in fight over the mark “REBAHEAL”

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining Rebanta Healthcare from using the REBAHEAL mark following a trademark infringement suit by Dr. Reddy’s. The court found the marks identical, raising concerns of public confusion and health risks.

Jumbo Tramples Haathi Trademark Registration

The Calcutta High Court set aside the Registrar’s decision in a trademark dispute involving similar elephant marks for tea products. The court held that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to Girnar’s well-known “JUMBO” mark and allowed Girnar’s appeal.

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court clarified that trademark infringement requires a holistic comparison of marks and their respective goods or services. The court found no likelihood of confusion between Unisn and Unison, highlighting the need to consider all circumstances and the anti-dissection rule in such cases.

Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

The Bombay High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction in a trademark dispute due to Atyati’s suppression of material facts regarding Cognizant’s prior logo use. This decision reiterates the necessity for full and transparent disclosure in ex-parte proceedings.

Novartis says No to Novarish

The Bombay High Court granted Novartis an injunction against Novarish Healthcare for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found the marks deceptively similar and protected Novartis’s established rights under Indian IP law.

Similarity Overdose : Glaxo’s trade dress vs Qpharm’s trade dress

The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against Qpharm for using deceptively similar packaging and trade dress to Glaxo’s products. This case illustrates the enforcement of trade dress rights and legal remedies available for trademark infringement and passing off in the Indian pharmaceutical industry.