Trade Marks N95 Is A Generic Term: IPAB Stays Operation Of Registration Of N95 Trademark December 4, 2020December 4, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Delhi HC Restraints A Bakery From Using The Mark ‘FACEBAKE’ In A Trademark Suit Filed By Facebook November 18, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks 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 under Section 124 and observed that the jurisdiction of the IPAB to entertain the application would always be subject to the decision by the Court in the application for stay. September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks 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 not prejudice the plaintiff, which had every right to protect its right in the concerned trademark. The Court further held that there was no bar in law for a partner initiating litigation to protect the intellectual property rights of the partnership firm. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks 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. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks HELD that use of the word ‘Luxuria’ infringes upon the trademark ‘Luxura’ for comfort buses August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks 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 to be known by people ‘concerned with it’, as opposed to those who ‘use it’ per Section 2(1)(zg) August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Concept of concept of dilution in Section 29 (4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. HELD 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. August 30, 2020August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks HELD 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 the plaintiff’s drug which was sold in the form of a tablet or in an injectable form…………. in the case of medicinal products, a stricter approach should be adopted to completely rule out the possibility of deception or confusion in the minds of the average consumer August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks SC Declines To Hear Plea Assailing Madras DB HC Order Declining To Restrain Patanjali Ayurved From Using Mark “Coronil” HELD “If we prevent the use of word “Coronil” on the ground that there is some pesticide on its name, it will be terrible for the first product.” August 27, 2020 Indian IPR
