Trademarks Archives | Page 10 of 68

A battle of SMITHS. Who owns the rights over the word 'SMITH'?

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court ruled in the case of A.O. Smith Corporation v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the defendants’ plea in a trademark infringement dispute. The court upheld A.O. Smith’s claim, restraining the defendants from using marks ‘STAR SMITH’ and ‘BLUE DIAMOND,’ citing potential confusion and dishonest adoption. Continue Reading A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

April 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 534Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court settled a decades-long dispute over the ownership of the ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ trademark. Confirming PM Diesel’s prior and legitimate usage since 1963, the court dismissed Thukral Mechanical Works’ claim based on a later acquisition. This judgment underscores the critical importance of prior user rights in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

April 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 558Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court while deciding an application for interim injunction, held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks or pass off its products as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, instituted a civil suit, against Defendant 1, Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. ("SSPL"), and Defendant 2, Rachna Nitin Jindal, wife of Nitin Kumar Jindal, Manager of SSPL, based on its rights over the word mark “JINDAL” registered in classes 6 and 17. The Plaintiff’s case was that the…

March 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 646Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court allowed an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrict their use of the mark “TOWER” to manufacture and sell dry fruits. This Court stated that a defendant cannot determine the ambit of what constitutes “Plaintiff’s goods of interest”. Continue Reading Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

March 22, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 669Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

The Delhi High Court has sent a trademark application for the word “Bharat” with a device back to the examiner for re-evaluation. While a previous court order ruled the mark distinctive, it failed to address objections about potential genericness. This case highlights the importance of a thorough trademark examination process. Continue Reading The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

March 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 705Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of…

March 14, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 802Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of Sterling Agro Industries, protecting their “NOVA” trademark for dairy products from a deceptively similar mark “NOVYA” used by ASR Trading Company. The Court noted the similarity in marks and packaging, the abandoned trademark application by ASR, and their its to prove otherwise, leading to a permanent injunction and penalty against the defendant. Continue Reading Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

March 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 488Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith. Continue Reading Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

March 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 701Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

Recent rulings spotlight service notice issues and trademark similarity. The Delhi High Court addresses ‘HP-40 vs WD-40’ similarity and rectifies an opposition notice lapse for ‘ASLI AMLA, SIRF DABUR AMLA’. Continue Reading Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

March 4, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 440Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Recent trademark cases include injunctions against ‘Fly Hi’ and ‘Timespro’ by the Delhi High Court, and a pivotal Bombay High Court decision on renewal notices for trademark removal. These cases highlight the courts’ proactive stance in protecting registered trademarks and ensuring proper procedural adherence for trademark renewal and removal, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action. Continue Reading Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

March 1, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 603Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Connect with Us

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

Connect with us