Browse the archive
Can brand owners bypass pre-suit mediation after a criminal raid? Calcutta High Court rules that delaying civil suits after police raids defeats Section 12A emergency exemptions.
The Bombay High Court decreed a permanent injunction in Meridian v. Cascade, resolving a pharmaceutical trademark dispute over NASOMIST using binding consent terms under CPC.
The Madras High Court affirmed the exclusive rights of the registered proprietor of 'PREETHI HOSPITALS' while clarifying the procedural limits of reopening interlocutory injunctions.
The Madras High Court has upheld an ex-parte injunction protecting the 'GLOBE' trademark, ruling that a 'proposed to be used' declaration in a defendant's application fatally undermines subsequent claims of prior user status.
The Delhi High Court in ASR Market Ventures v. Fitship reaffirmed the primacy of prior use over registration, ordering the cancellation of a deceptively similar mark.
The Bombay High Court has granted Asian Paints an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Deepak Kumar Panwar, affirming protection for its 'APEX' trade dress and marks.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a John Doe suit filed by YouTube Google LLC against Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, citing a critical lack of specificity in the pleadings regarding registered trademark infringement. Under the Commercial Courts Act and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, courts now demand rigorous evidentiary standards for injunctions. Plaintiffs must definitively identify the specific trademark registrations breached and demonstrate a concrete legal injury, rather than relying on broad, speculative assertions to justify the use of John Doe procedural mechanisms.
The Madras High Court in Vinbros and Co v. Chamundi Winery has decisively ruled that the mere administrative situs of the Trademark Registry cannot confer territorial jurisdiction for infringement litigation. Jurisdictional competence under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act remains tethered to the plaintiff’s place of business or the defendant's actions, rather than the location of the registry office. This prevents forum shopping and ensures that judicial resources are aligned with the operational realities of the parties involved in the dispute.
The Delhi High Court is currently examining the threshold for territorial jurisdiction in disparagement and IP infringement cases where digital content is involved. Relying on the Banyan Tree framework, the court evaluates whether a plaintiff can sue at a branch office or if they are restricted to the principal place of business. This case highlights that mere website accessibility is insufficient to establish jurisdiction; plaintiffs must provide concrete evidence of purposeful availment, such as targeted commercial activities, to successfully defend a jurisdictional challenge under Section 20 of the CPC.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the use of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant interim protection against hold-over franchisees. By enforcing negative covenants in a franchise agreement, the court restrained the unauthorized use of the trademark KIDGEE, citing it as deceptively similar to the registered brand KIDZEE. This ruling confirms that post-termination disputes are fundamentally contractual and arbitrable, allowing franchisors to protect their intellectual property and brand equity through targeted interim relief despite the infringer's attempt to use a generic-sounding mark.
