The Madras High Court appointed an arbitrator in the case of M. Rajaratnam vs. M/S. Raj Video Vision, rejecting claims of non-arbitrability. The court ruled that the dispute centered on the misuse of partnership assets, not merely copyright infringement, and thus could be resolved through arbitration. Continue Reading Copyright Disputes in Partnerships are Arbitrable
In a copyright dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining Navraj Infratech from using artistic architectural works of Countrywide Promoters. The court found prima facie infringement of copyright and passing off. The case is set for further hearings in January 2025. Continue Reading Copying of Artistic Architectural Works in Brochure for Advertising Restrained
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lacoste in its trademark infringement suit against Crocodile International. Lacoste was granted a permanent injunction to prevent Crocodile International from using a deceptively similar crocodile logo in India, with the Court ruling that Lacoste’s trademark rights had been violated. Crocodile International was also ordered to submit statements of profits made since 1998. Continue Reading Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of Trademark
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Volvo against M/s Grasp Engineering for using the trademark “VOLVO PUMPS” without authorization. The court found Grasp’s actions likely to deceive consumers and harm Volvo’s reputation, leading to the restriction of Grasp’s use of the mark until further hearings. Continue Reading Volvo drives home a victory in Trademark ‘Volvo Pump’ dispute
In a case between YC Electric Vehicle and Vishwas Automobiles LLP, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff. The Court found that the defendant’s use of the “YATRI STAR” mark infringed on YC Electric Vehicle’s “YATRI” trademark and misled consumers, ordering the defendant to cease all use of the marks and copyrighted images. Continue Reading Use of e-Rickshaw Trademark ‘Yatri’ by Competitor Restrained
In a 2024 decision, the Bengaluru City Civil Court dismissed both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s claims in a trademark dispute between Nandini Deluxe and Hotel Nandini, ruling that both parties could continue using their respective trademarks without infringing on each other’s rights. Continue Reading Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks
The case of Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Ltd. involves a dispute over the issuance of a compulsory license under Section 31 of the Copyright Act for public performance rights. Al Hamd contends that the license fees charged by PPL were unreasonable, while PPL argues the petition is not maintainable. The Court has reserved its decision, keeping all issues open for further consideration. Continue Reading Compulsory licensing in copyrights, Al Hamd challenges PPL’s fees
The Delhi High Court declared ‘VIVO’ as a well-known trademark, granting a permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, who was found infringing the ‘VIVO’ mark by selling adhesives under the name VIVO +Plus Adhesive. The Court recognized the widespread use and reputation of the ‘VIVO’ mark, awarding costs to Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd. Continue Reading VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against social media influencer Prashant Desai, restraining him from publishing disparaging content about Zydus Wellness’ trademark “COMPLAN.” The court found that Desai’s statements about the product’s sugar content were misleading and unsupported by scientific evidence, directing the removal of his videos and posts to prevent further harm to the brand’s reputation. Continue Reading Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan
VANS Inc. secured a permanent injunction against Gopal Goyal in a trademark infringement case before the Delhi District Court. The Court found Mr. Goyal guilty of selling counterfeit products under VANS’ mark, ordered the confiscation of infringing goods, and awarded VANS exemplary damages of ₹50,000 for reputational and financial losses. Continue Reading VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles