Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.

ITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar Cigarettes

The Delhi High Court has restrained several parties from selling cigarettes using deceptively similar marks to ITC’s Gold Flake brand, citing clear infringement and passing off. This decision underscores the judicial approach to protecting well-known trademarks in India.

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

The Delhi High Court ruled that non-use of a trademark does not automatically bar injunctive relief if deceptive similarity and consumer confusion are present. The Court emphasized that trademark protection persists despite periods of non-use, provided legal criteria for an injunction are satisfied.

No more ‘Social’izing for Social chai

The Delhi High Court has restrained Social Chai from using the “SOCIAL” mark, finding trademark infringement and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The dispute highlights the importance of trademark protection in the restaurant industry.

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

The post discusses the high standards Indian courts apply to pharma trademark infringement, particularly the need to avoid consumer confusion between medicinal products. It highlights judicial reasoning and established legal principles on the scrutiny of dominant trademark parts in the pharmaceutical sector.

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on trademark infringement involving the mark “PEBBLE” used by V Guard and Crompton. The Court held that a well-known mark is not necessary for relief under Section 29(4) if reputation in India is proven.

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement claims over the use of ‘Smith’ for identical water purification products. The decision highlights the assessment of dominant trademark elements and the likelihood of confusion among Indian consumers.

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim injunction plea, holding that the use of the common surname JINDAL cannot be monopolised under trademark law. The court found no infringement or passing off, as the impugned mark was sufficiently distinct.

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of the TOWER trademark on dry fruits, finding a risk of consumer confusion and breach of a prior undertaking. The order clarifies trademark enforcement boundaries and highlights the importance of respecting agreed limitations in Indian IP disputes.

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This post discusses recent High Court decisions on trademark infringement, stay of suit, and damages in India. It offers an objective analysis of key legal principles and practical implications for trademark litigation.