Injunction Where an attempt to confuse or deceive is discernible, the court leans in favour of finding the attempt to have been successful, rather than a failure. Dishonesty, in cases of intellectual property infringement, imperils the case of a defendant to no insubstantial extent. HELD connoisseur of the plaintiff’s alcoholic “BREEZER” would not partake of the defendants’ non-alcoholic “FREEZ mix”. The triple identity test, of similarity of marks, similarity of products and availability through common sources, is also, therefore, satisfied . Defendant restrained November 13, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark High Court grants relief to Raymond, restrains further sale of Vijaypat Singhania autobiography November 6, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark Interim injunction in a trademark infringement case involving the mark ‘B-COLEN’. HELD the defendant’s mark too closely resembled that of the plaintiff, who was the earlier registered proprietor. The defendant’s mark was held to be confusingly and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s mark and that the same increased the likelihood that the defendant’s product will be mistaken for that of the plaintiff’s product. November 3, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark Ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff from infringing upon the trademark “Blue Heaven”. HELD that the defendant had adopted a similar mark and the same trade-dress as that of the plaintiff to pass-off its inferior goods as that of the plaintiff’s product, that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if an injunction were not granted. November 3, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark Ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff’s trademark infringement involving the mark ‘Liv52’. Prima facie the defendant indulged in infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark and sought to pass off their products as associated with the plaintiff’s by using the marks ‘Liv55’ and ‘Liv999’. The defendant’s use of the mark sought to capitalize on the plaintiff’s goodwill. November 3, 2021November 3, 2021 Indian IPR
Injunction In case concerning breach of confidentiality and for infringement of copyright of the product Noxguard, a nasal spray. The Bombay High Court HELD that the plaintiff’s claim concerning the originality of the product had been recanted in a subsequent affidavit filed and thus could not prove that the defendant’s product was a copy of the plaintiff’s product. November 3, 2021November 3, 2021 Indian IPR
Code of Civil Procedure Sale of Empagliflozin restrained . November 3, 2021November 3, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark HELD “The defendant has adopted the domain name www.bharatmatrimony.org, which is squarely prohibited under Section 29 of the Trademark Act as infringement. Under Section 29(3), if the identical mark used for identical service, the Court shall presume the infringement.” Permanent injunction granted to ensure that the trademark, bharatmatrimony.com is not infringed October 19, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Jatin Hemendrabhai Vora Trading as M/S Paruldefendant from using ‘REAL RICA Wax’ and ‘REAL RICA’ marks for their hair removal products in light of the plaintiff’s registered ‘RICA’ mark October 17, 2021 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark The Delhi District Court (Tis Hazari) granted a permanent injunction restraining the M/s New Krishna Glass & Hardware, defendant from using their ‘GREEN FOREST’ mark or any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered ‘GREEN’ mark. The court also ordered delivery up of the infringing goods and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff for the illegal profit in addition to the plaintiff’s suit fees assessed at Rs. 22,000 October 17, 2021 Indian IPR
