trademark law | Intellepedia

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.

Captain Morgan Prevails Over Captain Blue in Trade Mark Dispute

Two sailing ships at sea with oversized bottles (blue and amber) on their decks; text reads "Who’s the Real Captain?" with a pirate hat graphic.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Diageo’s “Captain Morgan” trademark, rejecting the registration of “Captain Blue” due to deceptive similarity and absence of bona fide use. The decision reinforces the importance of prior use and consumer recognition in trademark law.

Numerical Trademarks and Their Registrability: A Review of the 2929 Case

A stylized illustration of a black steam locomotive pulling four red cargo wagons. Each wagon is labeled with a large white number: 555, 501, 91, and 2929, respectively, from front to back. The train and its wagons symbolize the addition of "2929" numerical trademark to the existing numerical trademarks registered with the Trademark office.

The Delhi High Court has recently allowed the registration of the numerical mark ‘2929’ for cosmetic products. The Court stated that numerals can function as any other trademarks if they are distinctive. In the case, the Court overturned the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks that rejected the 2929 mark on the ground that numeral marks are not distinctive and therefore, cannot be registered.

Trademark Application Refusal Overturned in Mocemsa Case

Naturally Distinct Mocemsa Wins Appeal Against Trademark Application Refusal

Introduction In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Mocemsa Care ("Mocemsa") in its appeal against the trademark application refusal...

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Court directs cancellation of “STAR” Trademark for lack of honest and concurrent use

The Madras High Court cancelled the STAR trademark held by S Star Trading Co., recognising the Petitioner’s prior use and distinctiveness. The Court found the Respondent’s adoption of the mark dishonest and likely to cause confusion, directing cancellation for lack of honest and concurrent use.

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

The Delhi High Court declared VIVO a well-known trademark in India after finding infringement and passing off by an adhesive manufacturer. The Court issued a permanent injunction and set out legal criteria for determining well-known status and trademark protection under Indian law.

Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that only officers with quasi judicial authority may issue binding trademark orders under the Trade Marks Act. Orders passed by unauthorized officials were declared void, setting a significant precedent for the administration of trademark opposition proceedings 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.