The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal, upholding an interim injunction favoring Himalaya Wellness in the ‘Evecare’ trademark dispute. The court found that Wipro’s use of the identical mark for its female hygiene product created a likelihood of confusion with Himalaya’s Ayurvedic uterine tonic, which had been in use since 1997. The decision emphasized the precedence of prior use over trademark registration in cases of passing off. Continue Reading Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Abbott Laboratories, restricting the circulation of an advertisement for Ensure Diabetes Care. HUL argued that Abbott’s advertisement disparaged its Horlicks Diabetes Plus by creating a misleading impression. The court found merit in HUL’s claims, noting the ad’s intent to undermine its competitor. Continue Reading Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court
On 1 October 2024, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Kent RO Systems Ltd. in a case involving design infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from selling infringing water purifiers and directed Flipkart to remove all listings of the infringing products. Continue Reading Design infringing water purifiers taken down from Flipkart
The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of Kymab Limited’s patent application related to generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The Court found that the invention does not fall under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it is not a method for treating animals but a process for producing antibodies using genetically modified animals. The patent is now set to be granted. Continue Reading Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered…
The Delhi High Court overturned the Deputy Controller’s decision rejecting Axcess Limited’s patent application. The Court ruled that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and remanded the case for fresh consideration, providing guidance on permissible amendments under the Patents Act, 1970. Continue Reading Claim Amendments within the Scope of Patent Specification are Permissible, the Delhi High Court reiterates
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Biswanath Hosiery Mills, holding that Micky Metals’ use of the “LUX TMT” mark constituted passing off. The Court granted a permanent injunction, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs’ trademark rights extended even to dissimilar goods. Continue Reading Passing Off Suit: ‘LUX’ Trademark Protected by Calcutta High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed Rasayanam Enterprises’ appeal against an injunction in a trademark infringement case concerning the deceptive packaging of Shilajit. The court found Rasayanam’s 20 gm packaging deceptively similar to Upakarma Ayurveda’s trademark, thus upholding the interim injunction, emphasizing consumer confusion in competitive products. Continue Reading Good Karma prevails for Upakarma yet again, court affirms injunction against Trademark infringement
The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, prohibiting Bio Logic from using the “AMUL” trademark for pharmaceutical products. The court found Bio Logic’s use of the trademark deliberate and awarded Kaira Rs. 5,00,000 in damages and costs. Continue Reading Pharma company’s buttery slip : Court Stops Trademark Infringement of ‘AMUL’
In the case of Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sachdeva and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court ordered rectification of the ‘PRIME’ trademark, removing salt and spices due to non-use, following a petition filed by Koteshwar Chemfood. Continue Reading ‘Prime’ Trademark Registration for Salt Cancelled based on Prior, Continuous Use
The Delhi High Court held that Saregama’s suit against Zee Entertainment over copyright infringement was rendered infructuous under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, allowing Saregama to file a counterclaim. The court made no ruling on the final copyright claims, pending trial. Continue Reading When Saregama found a copyright infringement suit, not so e’Zee’