Trade Marks HELD the mark „super‟ is devoid of any distinctive character and not capable of distinguishing the goods of the plaintiff. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has obtained registration in respect of the marks „SUPER CUTESTERS‟, „SUPER CUTES‟ and „SUPER CUTEZ‟, it would not give him exclusive right over the use of the word „SUPER‟. March 3, 2022 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public January 23, 2022 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
Trade Marks The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Danish Health Care Pvt. Ltd. defendant from using any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered ‘ALDIGESIC’ marks October 17, 2021 Indian IPR
Trade Marks The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Saathi Adhesives Pvt. Ltd., defendant from using any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered ‘FEVICOL’, ‘SH’, ‘MARINE’, and ‘D3’ marks. October 17, 2021 Indian IPR
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
