Trademark Opposition | 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.

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.

Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!

Two cars racing side-by-side toward a checkered finish line with a waving finish flag; one car with FI MONEY written on it leads as it speed past the car with F1 on it.

The Delhi High Court cancelled the F1 trademark held by Formula One in Class 36 for non-use in India, following Epifi’s rectification petition. The decision reaffirms that trademark rights require genuine and ongoing use.

Trademark Opposition Fails Without Territorial Use Evidence

Illustration with a curious face and large question mark, asking “Can you lose a trademark without using it everywhere?” on a blue-green gradient background.

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the registration of the ‘JAI HANUMAN’ trademark, underscoring the importance of territorial use evidence in opposition cases. Despite claiming prior use, the appellant failed to show usage in South India, leading to the Court affirming the Registry’s decision.

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.

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.

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court remanded a trademark dispute involving Prem Biyani and Zee Entertainment, focusing on class distinctions and the status of well-known marks. The judgment highlights the need for careful, statutory evaluation of trademark applications across different classes.

Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application

The Delhi High Court restored Dabur’s trademark application for Odonil Mystic Rose, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition. The judgment reinforces the importance of fair opportunity and natural justice in trademark proceedings.

The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order

The Delhi High Court refused to remove trademark officers’ names from an order regarding delayed opposition filings. The judgment emphasises the need for transparency and adherence to limitation periods in trademark matters.

Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

Two recent Delhi High Court rulings clarify the consequences of unserved opposition notices and the assessment of trademark similarity based on numeric suffixes. The post analyses both decisions and discusses the procedural challenges in Indian trademark law.