Passing off | Intellepedia

Same 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.

Same 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.

Delhi HC bars ‘Khadi Veda’ for infringing KVIC’s KHADI mark

Banner with ayurvedic skincare items and title on Khadi Veda case

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.

You 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.

If 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.

BLUE JAYS vs BLUE-JAY: Delhi HC on Bad Faith and Trans-Border Goodwill

Blue jay birds with apparel and baseball equipment

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.

UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked

In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.

Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case between Shalimar Chemical Works and Edible Products, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—used for products sold under the Shalimar mark was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off, even if the rival product carried a different brand name.

Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case of Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off.

Aceclofenac Marks and the Limits of Exclusivity: The ACECLO Dispute

In the case of ACECLO versus ACECLOHEAL, aceclofenac-derived branding ran into Section 13 and the publici juris problem. Registration didn’t rescue exclusivity, and the visual and market differences did the rest.