Skip to content
Subscribe

Browse the archive

Category: trademark

trademark

Nugenesys v. Celagenex: Delhi HC Vacates Ex-Parte Injunction

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that parties seeking ex-parte injunctions must uphold uberrima fides, or the duty of utmost good faith. In a recent ruling, the court vacated an ad-interim order due to the suppression of material facts, specifically prior cease-and-desist notices and trademark opposition filings. This judgment clarifies that manufactured urgency cannot be used to bypass procedural safeguards under the Commercial Courts Act. Practitioners must ensure full disclosure in pleadings to avoid the risk of having equitable relief vacated for failing the test of judicial candor.

6 min read
trademark

Delhi HC Denies Injunction: Why Descriptive Marks Face Hurdles

The Delhi High Court has clarified that descriptive trademarks lack the exclusivity required for injunctive relief in passing off actions unless secondary meaning is proven. Relying on the Wander v. Antox precedent, the court emphasized that appellate interference in discretionary orders is restricted, particularly when the appellant fails to disclose historical prosecution disclaimers. This ruling highlights the necessity of robust evidence for prior use and warns practitioners that subsequent trademark registrations cannot retroactively justify delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.

6 min read
trademark

Bisleri vs. Agrawal: Bombay HC Decrees Settlement on ‘BILSSERI’

The Bombay High Court has validated a consent decree that effectively resolves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute by imposing strict punitive consequences for future violations. By leveraging the Commercial Courts Act 2015, the parties achieved an enforceable resolution that includes the destruction of infringing goods, withdrawal of trademark applications, and a substantial financial penalty clause. This judgment underscores the efficacy of well-drafted consent terms in securing proprietary interests while bypassing the extended duration of trial proceedings in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.

6 min read
trademark

Madras HC Orders Registry to Notify Parties in Trademark Rectification

The Madras High Court has established that a transfer of rectification proceedings from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 mandates strict adherence to natural justice. An administrative oversight in serving notice to the petitioner constitutes a fatal procedural defect, warranting the restoration of the plea. Legal practitioners must independently verify case statuses via the High Court docket, as relying solely on the registry’s administrative machinery poses significant risks to client property rights and procedural standing.

8 min read
trademark

Dr. Reddy’s vs. Razenta: Delhi HC Cancels DAPLOGIN Trademark

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the sanctity of the Trade Marks Register by ordering the cancellation of a conflicting mark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. In Dr. Reddy's v. Razenta, the Court prioritized the rights of a prior user, emphasizing that well-known marks require absolute protection, particularly in the healthcare sector where confusion could lead to medical errors. This judgment confirms that registration is not an absolute defense and that the Court will exercise its rectification powers to remove deceptive marks that undermine existing brand reputation.

5 min read
trademark

Noviets Pharma vs. Novartis: Delhi HC Upholds Injunction

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that using a mark as a business identifier does not exempt an entity from trademark infringement liability if the mark is phonetically similar to a well-known brand. In Noviets Pharma v. Novartis, the Court upheld an injunction, citing the triple identity test and the global reputation of the NOVARTIS mark. By prioritizing consumer protection and international recognition via WIPO and INDRP findings, the ruling serves as a stern warning against riding on the coattails of established corporate identities within the sensitive Indian pharmaceutical market.

5 min read
trademark

Jyothy Labs vs. Dabur India: Bombay HC Rules on Trade Dress

The Bombay High Court has clarified that trade dress protection extends beyond individual packaging elements to the overall visual impression created for the average consumer. In Jyothy Labs v. Dabur, the Court ruled that strategic emulation of a competitor's trade dress constitutes passing off, even if brand names differ. By applying the global test for similarity under the Trade Marks Act 1999, the judiciary protects established market goodwill against deceptive mimicry. This decision emphasizes that trade dress audits are essential for companies to avoid liability and maintain brand integrity in the competitive FMCG sector.

6 min read
trademark

Alder Biochem vs. Zydus: Delhi HC Cancels Deceptively Similar Mark

The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that adding a prefix to a registered trademark does not shield a defendant from infringement claims in the pharmaceutical sector. In Alder Biochem v. Zydus, the Court held that BIOCHEM is the essential identifier of the plaintiffs' mark, rendering ALDER BIOCHEM deceptively similar. This ruling underscores that under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, prior usage and phonetic similarity carry decisive weight. Courts will strictly protect established brands to prevent consumer confusion, regardless of third-party usage arguments, prioritizing public health and commercial goodwill.

5 min read
trademark

Madras HC Limits Section 17 Rights: FreeElective v. Matrimony.com

The Madras High Court has restricted the scope of protection for device marks, ruling that registration of a composite mark does not grant exclusive rights to its individual constituent words. In FreeElective v. Matrimony.com, the court relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 to clarify that infringement actions cannot be leveraged against parts of a device mark unless separately registered. This judgment reinforces that Indian law distinguishes strictly between device and word marks, limiting statutory exclusivity to the trademark taken as a whole.

7 min read
trademark

Madras HC Denies Injunction: Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits

The Madras High Court has clarified that an injunction against alleged trademark infringement requires tangible evidence of consumer confusion, particularly in the spirits industry. In Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits, the court applied the dominant feature and anti-dissection rules, denying interim relief where branding differences were sufficient to preclude market deception. This ruling emphasizes that speculative claims regarding brand dilution are insufficient; plaintiffs must demonstrate a high threshold of actual or likely confusion to warrant judicial intervention under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

7 min read