Trademarks Archives | Page 11 of 68

Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the “prosecution history estoppel” principle applies to trademark cases. This means that statements made during the trademark registration process about similarities with other trademarks can be used against the applicant in future infringement lawsuits. The Court also emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information, including prosecution history, in trademark lawsuits. Continue Reading Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

February 29, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 630Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

3 Roses, Brooke Bond, Tiche, and Ahuja Trademark Cases

Exploring recent trademark infringement cases: HUL’s settlement with counterfeiters, damages awarded in ‘Ahuja’ counterfeiting case, and cancellation of ‘Tiche’ trademark due to wrongful registration. Continue Reading 3 Roses, Brooke Bond, Tiche, and Ahuja Trademark Cases

February 29, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 509Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

This blog post discusses a recent court case in India concerning the validity of raising a trademark invalidity plea against an interim application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court ruled that a plea of invalidity can be raised not only in the written statement but also in other pleadings and submissions, including counter-affidavits to interim applications. Continue Reading Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

February 29, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 394Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

Exploring recent judgments from the Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts on trademark disputes involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet vs. Nikoda Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’, and understanding the courts’ approach to trademark protection. Continue Reading Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

February 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 452Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

In this case, the Madras High Court highlights the importance of addressing similarity concerns and pursuing registration as a label mark for stronger protection. This case with help gain insights for navigating trademark challenges in India. Continue Reading Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

February 27, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 549Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Patanjali for Education, Kenley for Water Bottles, and Head Racer Trade Dress enforcement

Recent trademark cases include the Delhi High Court’s decisions on a composite logo including ‘Patanjali’, Coca Cola’s ‘Kinley’ trade dress, and ‘Ball Head Racer’ packaging infringement. Continue Reading Patanjali for Education, Kenley for Water Bottles, and Head Racer Trade Dress enforcement

February 26, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 452Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court."

Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.

“Chand” textile trademark owner loses infringement case against “Chand-A” lungi brand. Court finds long, honest, concurrent use by defendant since 1952 prevents confusion. Lack of concrete evidence weakens plaintiff’s claim of permissive use. Court outlines principles for proving honest and concurrent trademark use. Continue Reading Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.

February 19, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 833Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Oracle’s proprietary word ‘Java’ cannot be used in the domain name and the company name, says the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court banned Javapoint companies from using the “Java” trademark for training and domain names. Though not part of their company names anymore, “Java” usage in services and domain is deemed infringing on Oracle’s trademark rights. This decision protects trademark ownership and sets a precedent for proper usage in the tech industry. Continue Reading Oracle’s proprietary word ‘Java’ cannot be used in the domain name and the company name, says the Delhi High Court

February 19, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Software, Trademarks 0Comment 1080Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench."

Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench.

Delhi High Court split on jurisdiction for trademark rectification petitions: firstly stated any High Court, later restricted it to granting IP Office’s jurisdiction. The underlying point is differentiating Trade Marks Act from Patents and Designs Acts and emphasizing convenience for businesses. Continue Reading Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench.

February 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 822Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

In this case, the Delhi High Court explored if a trademark opposition be ‘deemed as abandoned’ if there was a delay in service of evidence by the opponent in the opposition. The Court also explained whether the timelines mentioned in the Trade Marks Act and Rules are mandatory or not. Continue Reading Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

February 13, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 848Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

3 Roses, Brooke Bond, Tiche, and Ahuja Trademark Cases

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

Patanjali for Education, Kenley for Water Bottles, and Head Racer Trade Dress enforcement

Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.

Oracle’s proprietary word ‘Java’ cannot be used in the domain name and the company name, says the Delhi High Court

Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench.

Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us