Skip to content
Subscribe

Browse the archive

Category: trademark

trademark

Delhi HC Cancels ‘Glass Skin’ Trademark Registration

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court has cancelled the 'GLASS SKIN' trademark registration, asserting that descriptive lifestyle terms cannot be monopolized by a single entity. The case of Renee Cosmetics v. Rupali Sharma highlights the dangers of 'proposed-to-be-used' filings being weaponized to block competitors via platform takedowns. The Court reinforced that descriptive terms belong to the trade and cannot serve as source identifiers without evidence of secondary meaning. This judgment serves as a vital reminder that trademark registries must rigorously filter out common descriptive vocabulary during the examination process.

10 min read
trademark

Exporting Goods? New Madras HC Ruling on Infringement

The Madras High Court has issued a landmark ruling in the V.V.V. & Sons Idhayam case, settling whether exporting goods under a competitor's trademark constitutes infringement. The court held that the mere act of affixing a registered trademark to goods in India for export constitutes 'use' under the Trade Marks Act, regardless of whether the products are sold domestically. This decision rejects the argument that lack of Indian consumer exposure grants immunity. For Indian manufacturers, this means export-oriented production must now strictly comply with domestic trademark rights to avoid legal liability.

9 min read
trademark

Restoring Lapsed Trademarks: Rajinder Singh v. Registrar

The Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajinder Singh v. Registrar of Trade Marks underscores the mandatory obligation of the Registry to ensure proper service of renewal notices under Section 25(3). When the Registry fails to update address records and sends notices to defunct addresses, it cannot rely on its own procedural errors to extinguish a proprietor's rights. This case adds to a growing list of precedents where courts have intervened to restore marks lapsed due to administrative negligence, ensuring that commercial rights remain protected against bureaucratic failures in the trademark renewal process.

8 min read
trademark

Alkem v. Numen: Bombay HC on Pharma Trademark Confusion

In the recent case of Alkem Laboratories v. Numen Pharma, the Bombay High Court clarified the high standard for pharmaceutical trademarks in India. By applying the bare possibility test, the court reinforced that in the drug industry, even a remote risk of confusion is sufficient to warrant an injunction. The ruling highlights that phonetic similarity and the overall commercial impression of marks take precedence over technical arguments about different drug classes. For companies, this serves as a stern reminder that patient safety overrides minor differences in pharmaceutical branding and composition.

9 min read
trademark

Moti Mahal Trademark Dispute: Franchise Default &

The Delhi High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the 'MOTI MAHAL' brand following a terminated agreement. This ruling clarifies that post-termination use of a licensed mark constitutes clear infringement. By highlighting the strength of franchise agreements as an IP tool, the Court protected the 100-year-old brand from unauthorized operations across physical outlets and online food aggregators. The decision is a vital reminder for brand owners that robust contractual terms and proactive enforcement are essential to maintaining exclusive rights and preventing irreparable harm in the competitive hospitality sector.

8 min read
Copyright

IndiaMart OTP Phishing: Delhi HC Targets Global

The Delhi High Court has issued a landmark ex parte ad-interim injunction against phishing operators targeting IndiaMart. The ruling is groundbreaking for its reach, involving international cloud providers like Vercel, Netlify, and GitHub as defendants to dismantle the infrastructure behind OTP relay attacks. By recognizing website GUI as copyrightable and treating cloud platforms as enablers of fraud, the Court has provided a new blueprint for IP enforcement in the digital age. This case demonstrates how Indian courts are now actively integrating cybercrime and IP protection to safeguard online businesses.

10 min read
trademark

Google Liable for Keyword Bidding: Hindware v. Google

In the landmark ruling of Hindware v. Google, the Delhi High Court has fundamentally shifted the framework of intermediary liability in India. Moving away from the 'visibility' test, the Court ruled that Google’s keyword auction mechanism constitutes active participation in trademark infringement. By monetizing coined marks for competitors, Google loses its Section 79 safe harbour protection. This 163-page judgment clarifies that active commercial participation by a platform triggers liability, regardless of whether the trademark appears in the ad copy itself. This is a critical precedent for all IP practitioners in India.

11 min read
trademark

Trademark Disputes: Why a Different Number Isn’t a Brand

The Liv-22 vs. Liv.52 dispute underscores a fundamental rule in Indian trademark law: changing a numeral is rarely enough to distinguish a brand. When a mark contains a dominant feature that has achieved significant market recognition, cosmetic alterations to suffixes or numbers are often dismissed by courts. This case reinforces that trademark protection focuses on consumer perception and the overall commercial impression of the brand rather than mechanical typography. For brand owners, this highlights the risks of attempting to piggyback on established goodwill through minor modifications.

3 min read
trademark

Similar Trademarks: Why They Don’t Always Infringe

Common wisdom suggests that similar marks lead to infringement, but Indian courts apply a much more nuanced test. Through cases like Nandhini Deluxe and Goenka, the judiciary has demonstrated that coexistence is possible when businesses operate in different commercial spheres or when marks lack inherent distinctiveness. This article explores three core lessons: the limits of trademark classification, the special status of surnames, and the importance of the 'overall impression' test. Understanding these principles helps brand owners navigate the complexities of concurrent use and consumer confusion under the Trade Marks Act.

4 min read