Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants Permanent Injunction

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction to Heifer Project International over unauthorized use of its trademarks by Heifer Project India Trust. The Court’s decision highlights the significance of valid trademark registration and enforcement in India’s non-profit sector.

Whose mark got the ‘X’ Factor? Relaxo Footwear vs XS Brands

The Delhi High Court dismissed Relaxo Footwear’s claim over the ‘X’ device mark against XS Brands, highlighting the significance of coexistence and lack of confusion in trademark disputes. The post discusses the Court’s structured analysis of both parties’ arguments and the broader implications for mark distinctiveness.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court granted MRF a permanent injunction and nominal damages against Powermax for trademark and copyright infringement. The judgment underscores the legal significance of safeguarding established trademarks in India.

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

The Bombay High Court has restrained Gleck Pharma from using XIGAMET for its diabetes product, finding it deceptively similar to Glenmark’s ZITA-MET. This decision highlights the Court’s heightened scrutiny in pharmaceutical trademark cases to prevent consumer confusion and associated health risks.

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced an injunction against BETNEVIN, holding it infringed Glaxo’s BETNESOL trademark. The Court clarified that infringement can be determined in execution proceedings to enforce trademark decrees in India.

Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow” to Unilever’s “Handsome”

The Calcutta High Court examined Emami’s claims against Unilever over the use of “Handsome” in skincare branding. While trademark infringement was not established, the Court found grounds for passing off and ordered Unilever to cease using the contested mark.

Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa Jaa

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the DOUBLE KABOOTER trademark, citing prior use and deceptive similarity with DABAL KABUTER BRAND. This case highlights the importance of accurate trademark claims and evidence in Indian law.

Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy

This post explores Haldiram’s successful legal action against trademark infringement, resulting in permanent injunctions and damages. It discusses the judicial recognition of Haldiram as a well-known mark, reflecting broader implications for brand protection in India.

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.