trademark law | Intellepedia

Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation

Illustration of an actor beside a film clapperboard, with the headline ‘Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam flag use allowed; no prima facie trademark or copyright violation.

In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.

Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court

In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.

Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

A warning sign with a yellow background and black border displaying the text "WARNING: PROCEDURE LAPSES AHEAD" under a triangular caution symbol, indicating potential procedural errors or issues.

In the case of M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 to address procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in accepting trademark applications. The Court found omissions in the Search Reports and noted the lack of application of mind by the Registry, prompting remand of the applications for fresh examination.

Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

Comic-style image illustrating a courtroom scenario. On the left panel, a judge asks a person, "Have you used the trademark?" The person responds, "No, but I intend to!" In the right panel, the word "DENIED" appears boldly in red letters on a bright yellow background.

In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.

Court delivers an ‘Iconic’ ruling in JOLLY RANCHER trademark dispute

**Alt Text:** Two cowboys face off in a sepia-toned standoff, symbolizing a trademark dispute. The cowboy on the left wears a "JOLLY RANCHER" hat and shirt, holding a candy bar. The cowboy on the right wears a "JOLLY RANGER" shirt and holds a gavel, representing legal confrontation.

Gujarat High Court quashes Shiv Textiles’ trademark suit against Iconic IP Interests LLC for lack of Indian jurisdiction and no valid cause of action under CPC.

Delhi High Court Revives Crocs’ Passing Off Suits Against Bata, Liberty Over Shape Trademark

A lineup of various footwear styles including sneakers, loafers, and a distinctive green clog resembling a Crocs shoe with cartoonish crocodile teeth, symbolizing Crocs amid competitor brands.

Delhi HC revives Crocs’ passing off suits, affirming coexistence of design and common law rights. Bata, Liberty among accused in shape trademark dispute.

Trademark Registrations are Pan-India

A satellite view of India at night with illuminated cities, highlighting the phrase "Trademarks are PAN INDIA".

The High Court reinstated an injunction in favour of Rainbow Hospitals, confirming that trademark registrations are pan-India in scope and shield brand owners from dishonest adopters, irrespective of geographical overlap.

Horizontal to Vertical inversion of letters not a ‘substantial amendment’ of trademark

Delhi High Court sets aside Registrar’s cancellation of a trademark, ruling that vertical inversion of letters is not a substantial amendment under trademark law.

Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court

Image showing Industrial factory setting with conveyor belts and workers handling tyres and materials, overlaid with the text 'Dunlop Trademark Dispute' and gavel icons, symbolising a legal dispute over trademark rights.

In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.