Trademark Infringement | Intellepedia

What’s in a God’s Name? Siyaram Wins Trademark Battle in Bombay

Close-up macro photograph of premium suiting fabric in deep navy and charcoal grey, with a fine herringbone or pinstripe weave pattern. Along the selvedge edge, the word "Siyaram" appears subtly woven or embossed into the cloth in a slightly lighter thread.

Siyaram Silk Mills and Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited clashed before the Bombay High Court in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute over the “Siyaram” mark. Can a Hindu deity’s name be monopolised as a trademark? After eighteen years of litigation, the court’s answer tilts firmly in the textile giant’s favour.

Caught without a Helmet: The false pleadings that sank RYNOX’s Trademark suit

Rhinoceros in a motorcycle helmet riding a cruiser bike, illustrating the RYNOX vs RHYNOX trademark passing off case before the Bombay High Court

Rynox Gears and Steelite India both hold registered trademarks for motorcycle-related products – RYNOX and RHYNOX respectively. When Rynox sued Steelite for trademark infringement and passing off before the Bombay High Court, the court had to ask: can one registered proprietor infringe another’s mark, and did Rynox’s own pleadings doom its case?

No Passport for Trademark Exhaustion – Delhi HC Resets the Rules

Indian passport featured image - Delhi High Court ruling on trademark international exhaustion under Section 30(3) Trade Marks Act, illustrating that foreign trademark registration carries no automatic rights in India

When a Chinese manufacturer’s Indian agent registers the STELLADEXIN trademark and the manufacturer later authorises a rival to sell the same cookers in India, who can claim infringement? The Delhi High Court Division Bench answers that question and, in doing so, resets the limits of international exhaustion and prior user under Indian trademark law.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

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.

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.

Intellepedia’s Top Trademark Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

Discover key 2025 Indian trademark rulings on infringement, trade dress, intermediary liability, and procedural fairness in this roundup from Intellepedia.

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.

The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon Services

Salon mirror reflection with hair styling tools and lights.

The Bounce trademark dispute highlights the complexities of enforcing rights over generic marks in the salon industry. The Madras High Court’s interim order underscores the importance of trial evidence in determining exclusivity and infringement in descriptive trademark cases.

Trademark Trouble Brewing: What ‘COX 5001’ Got Wrong About ‘HAYWARDS 5000′

A bottle of Haywards 5000 beer placed centrally on a rustic stone table, surrounded by ripe red tomatoes, herbs, and a metal pot, styled like a still-life painting with warm, earthy tones.

Bombay High Court grants AB Inbev a permanent injunction against Jagpin’s “COX 5001” mark, ruling it infringes the “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” trademarks.