Tuesday, October 20, 2020

While considering an application for stay of proceedings under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (‘Trademarks Act’), the Court held that there was no illegality in the filing of a rectification application before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) by a party before the said party approached the Court seeking stay of suit proceedings […]

While reiterating that registration of assignment is mandatory in terms of Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act (‘Trademarks Act’), the Court however observed that when the plaintiff had admittedly applied for recording the assignment at the earliest and there was a huge delay on the part of the Trade Marks Registry, this delay could […]

Court held that an abbreviation of descriptive words cannot be used as a trademark if it is a generic term with generic connotations, unless the abbreviation itself could be demonstrated to have acquired a secondary meaning. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI   Date of Decision:- 15.05.2020   +     CS(COMM) 128/2020   […]

HELD  that use of the word ‘Luxuria’ infringes upon the trademark ‘Luxura’ for comfort buses IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.05.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH O.S.A.NOs.7 & 8 of 2011 Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd. 171, 2nd Floor, Nilgiri’s Building, Brigade Road, […]

Trade Marks Act 1999        HELD ‘reputation’ to mean a mark ‘known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark.’  that of well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg).If anything, this appears to be an even higher standard so far as it requires the mark […]

Section 29 (4) is an exception to the general scheme of the Act which requires the “likelihood of confusion” approach. ‘Dilution’ under the Section does not require a finding of confusion. In the ultimate analysis, mere similarity of marks and the fact that a mark has a reputation in India are not sufficient. There must be proof […]

  In Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited, the Court rejected the argument of the defendant that despite the likelihood of confusion in the name, there should be no injunction merely on account of the fact that it’s drug was sold in the form of a lotion or cream as opposed to […]

SC Declines To Hear Plea Assailing Madras HC Order Declining To Restrain Patanjali Ayurved From Using Mark “Coronil” Sanya Talwar 27 Aug 2020 1:08 PM The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear a plea by a chennai-based firm assailing an order of the Madras High Court declining to restrain Patanjali from using the trademark […]

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION LD/VC/IA/1/2020 IN LD/VC/144/2020 (COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.___ OF 2020) Hindustan Unilever Limited … Plaintiff Versus Emami Limited … Defendant Mr. V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Vaibhav Keni, Ms. Neha Iyer and Mr. Prem […]

ORDER SHEET CS No.62 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EMAMI LIMITED Versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA Date : 7th July, 2020. Appearance: Mr. Jishnu Saha Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Ginodia, Adv. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kr. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. […]

Recent Judgements