Trademark rectification

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.

Non Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi High Court favors Zepto

Non-Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi HC Favors Zepto

The Delhi High Court, in an ex-parte decision, ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark registered by Mohammad Arshad in Class 35, upholding Kiranakart’s claim of non-use. The judgment affirms that trademarks must be actively used to retain validity under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act.

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of a deceptively similar COCOMELON trademark registered by the respondent. Treasure Studio Inc., the creators of the globally recognized children’s brand, successfully secured relief, ensuring stronger protection for its distinctive trademark and intellectual property rights.

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

The Madras High Court, in a dispute involving STAR Plastics and S Star Trading Co., canceled the latter’s trademark under Class 11, citing deceptive similarity and dishonest adoption. The Court upheld STAR Plastics’ prior use and registration rights, directing the Registrar to remove the 1st Respondent’s trademark from the registry.

SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

In Scrum Alliance Inc. v. Prem Kumar S., the Madras High Court dismissed Scrum Alliance’s petition to revoke the “CSM” trademark registered by Prem Kumar. The Court held that Scrum Alliance had not substantiated prior use of the mark in India and affirmed Prem Kumar’s ri

Subsequent User’s ‘Suguna’ Trademark for Grinders Rectified Despite Proof of Use from 2001

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of petitioners V. Lakshminarayanasamy and Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy in the “SUGUNA” trademark case, ordering the rectification of the respondent’s mark registration due to its deceptive similarity and potential for consumer confusion. The court emphasized the petitioners’ established prior use and rejected the respondent’s defense of concurrent usage.

‘Prime’ Trademark Registration for Salt Cancelled based on Prior, Continuous Use

In the case of Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sachdeva and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court ordered rectification of the ‘PRIME’ trademark, removing salt and spices due to non-use, following a petition filed by Koteshwar Chemfood.

Crocs croaks out its clone! Court Cancels ‘Crocksclub’ trademark

Crocs Inc. successfully filed a rectification petition to remove the trademark CROCKSCLUB, securing sole rights to the CROCS trademark in India. The court ruled in favor of Crocs Inc., highlighting the likelihood of confusion and risk of association with CROCS goods.

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of the case. This arrangement was agreeable to the Plaintiff as well, and other cases.