The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.
Read more about Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials caseTag: Passing off
Shatrughan Sinha and the Legal Fight Against Digital Impersonation
The Shatrughan Sinha digital impersonation ruling confirms that personality rights are enforceable against AI-driven misuse and commercial exploitation in the digital age.
Read more about Shatrughan Sinha and the Legal Fight Against Digital ImpersonationToo good to be true: the ALPS Rosemary Water Trademark Infringement case
Featured image for article: Too good to be true: the ALPS Rosemary Water Trademark Infringement case
Delhi Court awards ₹10 lakh damages in ALPS GOODNESS trademark infringement case, holding sellers liable for counterfeiting and directing Flipkart to disable listings.
Read more about Too good to be true: the ALPS Rosemary Water Trademark Infringement caseIntellepedia’s Top Industrial Design Articles of 2025: A Year in Review
A curated overview of India’s most significant industrial design law cases of 2025, highlighting key rulings on novelty, infringement, and coexistence of IP rights.
Read more about Intellepedia’s Top Industrial Design Articles of 2025: A Year in ReviewSame MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped In
In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the court examined whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them online could be justified as resale, or whether such conduct crossed into trade mark infringement, trade dress misuse, and passing off.
Read more about Same MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped InSame Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort
In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.
Read more about Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright ComfortDelhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI mark
An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in a trade mark infringement suit concerning KVIC’s KHADI mark. Use of KHADI VEDA and related domain names and online listings was restrained.
Read more about Delhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI markYou Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly
In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.
Read more about You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns CostlyIf You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access
In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench provided a structured analysis of what constitutes territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement actions after examining the plaintiff’s principal office, online listings, and the role of marketing agreements.
Read more about If You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online AccessBLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill
In Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr., the Delhi High Court clarified that global fame alone does not establish trademark rights in India. The ruling in BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY underscores the need to prove use and goodwill within India to succeed in cancellation and passing off claims.
Read more about BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill