Skip to content
Subscribe

Browse the archive

Category: trademark

trademark

Devans Modern Breweries v. Cartel Bros: Delhi HC Cancels Whisky Mark

A registered trademark proprietor maintains an exclusive, enforceable right under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 even without continuous use, preventing competitors from exploiting their brand. The Delhi High Court confirmed that beer and whisky qualify as allied and cognate goods due to shared retail channels and regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the anti-dissection rule cannot be used to insulate a dominant, registered word mark from infringement simply by embedding it within a composite label or adding celebrity endorsements, as such cosmetic changes fail to prevent consumer confusion.

13 min read
trademark

Delhi HC on Section 57: Rectifying Trademark Entries Post-IPAB

Trademark rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 is the primary legal mechanism for aggrieved parties to challenge fraudulently registered or unused marks. Following the abolition of the IPAB, jurisdiction is strictly determined by the registry that processed the impugned entry, though courts now pragmatically apply the principle of forum conveniens to consolidate parallel proceedings. To successfully invoke Section 57, a petitioner must establish a clear nexus as an aggrieved person and navigate the mandatory Section 124 procedural requirements when an infringement suit is already pending before the High Court.

14 min read
trademark

Can Registry Orders Ignore Replies? Delhi HC on Natural Justice

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the Trade Marks Registry must pass reasoned, speaking orders that substantively engage with an applicant's arguments. Failing to address specific submissions in an examination reply violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the refusal order legally untenable. Registrars must conduct a holistic assessment of a mark as a whole, rather than dissecting it, and evaluate distinctiveness specifically in relation to the goods applied for. This precedent mandates that the Registry move beyond boilerplate objections to provide transparent, reviewable justifications for all trademark registration denials.

13 min read
trademark

DRS Logistics v. Google: Delhi HC Clarifies Platform Liability

A trademark owner cannot hold an advertising platform in contempt for failing to proactively monitor third-party ads unless a court order explicitly mandates such surveillance. While platforms must adhere to their stated policies regarding trademark protection, the Delhi High Court clarifies that in India, these obligations are complaint-driven rather than automated. Litigants must ensure that any settlement or judicial undertaking is translated into an express operative direction within the final order, as contempt jurisdiction is strictly limited to the breach of explicit judicial mandates, not merely private policy commitments.

14 min read
trademark

Blue Cross v. Alto: Bombay HC Slaps 10 Lakhs on Infringers

Pharmaceutical brand owners can effectively protect their market position by coupling trademark registrations with copyright protection for packaging artwork. In cases of blatant imitation, Indian courts prioritize the 'average consumer' test, finding deceptive similarity where there is phonetic and visual overlap. Defendants who fail to contest proceedings reinforce the presumption of dishonesty. Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, IP owners should proactively lead evidence on actual damages to move beyond nominal costs, ensuring their long-term investment in trade dress and brand identity is fully judicially recognized.

10 min read
trademark

Microtek v. Okaya: Delhi HC Rebukes Trademark Disparagement

Comparative advertising crosses the threshold into disparagement and trade libel when it relies on fabricated factual claims, such as falsifying court-ordered seizures or misrepresenting a competitor's legal status. Under the Trade Marks Act 1999, Sections 29(8) and 30(1) permit honest comparisons but withdraw safe harbor protections for campaigns that denigrate a rival's reputation through verifiable lies. The Delhi High Court’s swift intervention underscores that digital distribution of false narratives—including via WhatsApp and social media—subjects dealers and employees to immediate injunctive relief and potential liability for trade libel.

10 min read
trademark

Konaflex v. Koanaflex: Delhi HC Cancels Trademark Due to Confusion

Trademark infringement in India does not require identity; phonetic and visual similarity, especially in oral trade, creates deceptive similarity. The Delhi High Court confirmed that minor variations, such as inserting a single letter, fail to distinguish coined marks when the underlying trade context is prone to oral confusion. In pharmaceutical and industrial sectors where ordering occurs via verbal communication, courts apply the test of the ordinary, hurried purchaser. Trademark protection for coined marks remains robust, as these rely entirely on sound and shape to anchor consumer brand memory.

7 min read
trademark

Bombay HC Restrains ‘New Indian Express’ Mumbai Operations

Trademark rights derived from settlement agreements and consent decrees are strictly governed by their explicit territorial and functional scope. The Bombay High Court in Indian Express v. Express Publications (Madurai) ruled that a permitted user cannot unilaterally expand trademark use to commercial events outside designated regions. The decision underscores that adding prefixes like 'New' to a registered mark does not grant independent proprietary rights that bypass the terms of a court-recorded agreement. Contractual limits on licensing are binding, and courts will narrowly construe derivative usage in family business splits.

12 min read
trademark

Delhi High Court Cancels Descriptive ‘GLASS SKIN’ Trademark

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that descriptive terms like GLASS SKIN cannot be monopolised as trademarks under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. In a significant win for fair competition, the court cancelled a registration that hindered legitimate trade usage. This ruling emphasizes that popular lifestyle or industry vocabulary remains in the public domain and cannot be fenced off by a single player without proof of distinct secondary significance. Businesses should rely on established trademarks, not generic product descriptors, to avoid costly litigation and potential registration cancellation.

10 min read
trademark

Export Infringement: Madras HC Rules on Trademark Affixation

The Madras High Court has definitively ruled that affixing a trademark in India on goods destined for export constitutes trademark use under the Trade Marks Act 1999. This judgment in V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC clarifies that Indian trademark owners can initiate infringement proceedings against domestic manufacturers even if the products are not sold in the local market. The act of application is sufficient to establish a cause of action, overriding arguments that domestic consumer exposure is necessary for trademark infringement claims in India.

9 min read