Trademark Law India | Intellepedia

Technical Delay Cannot Lead to Trademark Opposition Abandonment

The Delhi High Court held that procedural lapses, such as failing to file an original affidavit on time, cannot justify abandonment of trademark opposition if there is clear intent to comply. The judgment underscores the primacy of substantive rights over minor technicalities in Indian trademark law.

‘Big Dipper’ trademark infringement case, ruling on transborder reputation and importers’ rights

The Delhi High Court ruled on a trademark dispute between ‘Big Dipper’ and ‘Big Deeper,’ setting aside an ex parte injunction. The case centered on the assertion of transborder reputation by importers of the ‘Big Dipper’ mark. The Court relied on precedent to determine that mere global reputation is insufficient to claim trademark protection in India. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The sticky trademark fight between “FIGHTER” and “FITTER”

The Calcutta High Court granted interim relief in a trademark dispute involving “FIGHTER” and “FITTER” for adhesive tapes, finding deceptive similarity. The decision highlights the court’s approach to trademark protection and irreparable harm in such cases.

Monster Energy falls short of “Energy for the ‘Trademark’ Journey”

The Madras High Court rejected Monster Energy’s trademark application, finding “Energy for the Journey” was generic and lacked distinctiveness. The decision clarifies the legal threshold for trademark registrability under Indian law.

COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

The Delhi High Court cancelled a deceptively similar trademark registration for COCOMELON, reinforcing protections for well-known marks. The judgment highlights that substantial similarity and bad faith can lead to trademark cancellation in India.

Polo rides to the finish line in trademark infringement dispute

The Delhi District Court decided in favour of Polo in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute against Landmark Traders and Mystic Emin Private Ltd. The judgment clarifies key legal standards for assessing similarity and confusion in Indian trademark law.

Hot Mess? Court says “HOT MIX” is for everyone!

The Delhi District Court ruled that “HOT MIX” is a generic, descriptive term and cannot be exclusively owned. The plaintiff’s claims for trademark infringement and passing off were dismissed, as no likelihood of consumer confusion was established.

Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan

The Delhi High Court ordered an influencer to take down disparaging videos about Complan’s sugar content, finding the statements misleading and damaging to Zydus’ trademark. The court highlighted the responsibility of influencers to ensure accuracy, particularly in health-related content.

“CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

The Delhi High Court dismissed L’Oréal’s appeal against the CLARIWASH trademark, finding no deceptive similarity or grounds for cancellation. Procedural errors during examination were not considered sufficient for removal, and the respondent’s prior use was recognised.

Wrong Documents Served, Abandonment of Opposition Set Aside

The Delhi High Court reversed the abandonment of a trademark opposition after it was found the Registrar had served incorrect documents. The order restores the original proceedings, emphasizing procedural fairness in Indian trademark law.