BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying the blog post "No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL; court dismisses injunction petition."

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 805Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits"

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 781Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections."

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 962Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF INFRINGEMENT, STAY OF SUIT AND DAMAGES IN TRADEMARK CASES"

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1012Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”"

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 550Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks"

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 896Views 0Like
Share

Read more

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

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 719Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, Confirms the Bombay High Court"

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 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 814Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Connect with Us

BananaIP Counsels

No.40, 3rd Main Road, JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 111 (Old – 560 062)

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 |  +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34
Email: contact@bananaip.com

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes
BananaIP Counsels

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

WeConnect International certifies BananaIP as a Woman-Owned Firm

Connect with us

BananaIP Counsels

Office Address

No.40, 3rd Main Road,  JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 111 (Old – 560 062).

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 | +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34

Email: contact@bananaip.com

© 2004-2024 BananaIP Counsels. All Rights Reserved.