Browse the archive
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of a conflicting mark from the Register, reinforcing that prior established goodwill prevails over subsequent trademark registration.
Madras High Court clarifies that co-plaintiff partners cannot be transposed as defendants in trademark suits under Order I Rule 10 CPC, affirming Order I Rule 2 safeguards.
Delhi HC resolves Novartis v Novosys trademark suit, enforcing the Cadila public health doctrine and directing cancellation of deceptively similar marks.
The Madras HC refused to grant an interim injunction, holding that retail expansion under a unified GST registration does not violate a trademark litigation status quo order.
The Madras High Court disposed of a trademark infringement and passing off suit in Texmo Industries v. Gayatri Industries after recording a joint compromise memo over the mark 'ATARO PUMPS' in relation to 'TARO'.
The Madras High Court in Ashique Exports v. Koyenco Soaps reaffirmed that established trade dress and long-term usage provide robust protection against deceptive imitation in the FMCG sector.
The Madras High Court ruled that phonetic similarity in consumer goods triggers immediate trademark infringement, restraining 'MYSOAP' for mimicking the registered mark 'MYSOP'.
Does the Commercial Courts Act override the trademark forum requirements under Section 134? The Supreme Court referred this critical jurisdictional conflict to a larger bench.
Calcutta High Court issues partial injunction in Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited, clarifying the evidentiary threshold for trade dress infringement and passing off claims.
The Bombay HC set aside the 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' trademark rejection, ruling that the Registry cannot dissect composite marks or demand rigid timelines for acquired distinctiveness.
