Trade Marks HELD case of the defendant that it had itself applied for registration of the trademark in question on a “proposed to be used basis” would militate against the stand of the defendant before the Court that there was in fact prior use of the trademark by it. June 20, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks HELD that if the alleged infringing trademark had been in use for a long period of time, then the Court would be more circumspect in granting an injunction against the defendant. June 20, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks In a passing off action, the plaintiff is required to establish that the misrepresentation made by the defendant in the course of the trade via the impugned marks is calculated to injure or damage its goodwill, which could be actual or a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions. The misrepresentation need not be fraudulent. The tort of passing off i.e. deception / misrepresentation is agnostic to the intent of the defendant. June 20, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Bombay High Court grants ad-interim relief in favour of “DR FIXIT” marks and labels of Pidilite Industries in Trademark infringement suit June 20, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Delhi High Court restrains infringement of ‘Singh & Singh’ trademark by ‘Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP’ June 5, 2021 Indian IPR
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
