Trademarks Archives | Page 3 of 68

Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

In a trademark dispute between Sankalp Constructions and Shankalp Associates, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of trademark infringement. Finding no deceptive similarity, it ruled that Shankalp’s use of its trade name did not cause confusion or infringe on Sankalp’s registered mark. This case clarifies the importance of evidence in proving brand name similarity in trademark law. Continue Reading Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

November 13, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 213Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Nike swooshes away trademark infringers, comes out All Stars

The Delhi District Court awarded a permanent injunction to Nike, prohibiting unauthorized use of its trademarks by local defendants in a case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Court’s decision reinforces trademark protection standards, ruling in favor of Nike with exemplary damages for brand misrepresentation. Continue Reading Nike swooshes away trademark infringers, comes out All Stars

November 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 436Views 3Likes

ShareFacebook

“VARUN” scoops up an icy win against “ARUN”, court affirms co-existence of Trademarks

In Hatsun Agro Product Limited vs B. Balakrishnan Nair, the High Court of Madras upheld the trademark ‘VARUN,’ dismissing Hatsun’s claim for cancellation based on phonetic similarity with ‘ARUN.’ The court found that both marks could coexist without consumer confusion, considering the regional scope and distinctiveness factors. Continue Reading “VARUN” scoops up an icy win against “ARUN”, court affirms co-existence of Trademarks

November 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 278Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Trademark Exhaustion: Resale of lawfully acquired TMT Bars does not amount to Trademark Infringement

The Calcutta High Court denied an interim injunction to SRMB Srijan Pvt. Ltd., which sought to prevent the resale of its TMT bars by defendants citing trademark infringement. The Court held that resale of lawfully acquired SRMB products did not violate trademark rights, as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pending further investigation of alleged unauthorized territorial sales. Continue Reading Trademark Exhaustion: Resale of lawfully acquired TMT Bars does not amount to Trademark Infringement

November 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 237Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

CIT Trademark: Coimbatore Institute of Technology Prevails over Chennai Institute of Technology

The Madras High Court granted Coimbatore Institute of Technology exclusive rights over the “CIT” trademark, ruling against Chennai Institute of Technology’s concurrent use. The court determined that Chennai Institute’s use of “CIT” was misleading, lacking distinctiveness, and obtained through suppression of facts. The respondent’s mark was ordered to be removed from the trademark register. Continue Reading CIT Trademark: Coimbatore Institute of Technology Prevails over Chennai Institute of Technology

November 7, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 269Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

In Scrum Alliance Inc. v. Prem Kumar S., the Madras High Court dismissed Scrum Alliance’s petition to revoke the “CSM” trademark registered by Prem Kumar. The Court held that Scrum Alliance had not substantiated prior use of the mark in India and affirmed Prem Kumar’s ri Continue Reading SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

November 4, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 261Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Fraudulent Use of ‘Taj’ Hotel Trademark Restrained with Damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) in a case against Manoj for infringing the “TAJ” trademark and using copyrighted hotel images without authorization. The court ordered a permanent injunction against Manoj, mandated the transfer of the infringing domain, and awarded IHCL ₹10 lakhs in damages plus ₹5 lakhs in legal costs. Continue Reading Fraudulent Use of ‘Taj’ Hotel Trademark Restrained with Damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs

October 30, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 358Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Trademarks and Family Disputes: Without an Agreement in Writing, Trademarks Cannot be Deemed to be Assigned

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Chasvinder Singh, affirming his exclusive rights over the SAP SWISS trademark in an appeal concerning its use by family members in the automotive industry. The court set aside a prior interim injunction and clarified the importance of written agreements in trademark assignments, concluding that no binding family settlement included the transfer of trademark rights. Continue Reading Trademarks and Family Disputes: Without an Agreement in Writing, Trademarks Cannot be Deemed to be Assigned

October 29, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 314Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Subsequent User’s ‘Suguna’ Trademark for Grinders Rectified Despite Proof of Use from 2001

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of petitioners V. Lakshminarayanasamy and Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy in the “SUGUNA” trademark case, ordering the rectification of the respondent’s mark registration due to its deceptive similarity and potential for consumer confusion. The court emphasized the petitioners’ established prior use and rejected the respondent’s defense of concurrent usage. Continue Reading Subsequent User’s ‘Suguna’ Trademark for Grinders Rectified Despite Proof of Use from 2001

October 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 264Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Hot Mess? Court says “HOT MIX” is for everyone!

The Delhi District Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing-off case filed by Mr. Sunit Shah, ruling that the term “HOT MIX” is generic and cannot be exclusively owned. The Court found that the term is widely used in the industry, and there was no likelihood of confusion between the brands involved. No damages or injunction were awarded to Mr. Shah. Continue Reading Hot Mess? Court says “HOT MIX” is for everyone!

October 26, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 273Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Same Name, Different Game? Sankalp Constructions vs Shankalp Associates

Nike swooshes away trademark infringers, comes out All Stars

“VARUN” scoops up an icy win against “ARUN”, court affirms co-existence of Trademarks

Trademark Exhaustion: Resale of lawfully acquired TMT Bars does not amount to Trademark Infringement

CIT Trademark: Coimbatore Institute of Technology Prevails over Chennai Institute of Technology

SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

Fraudulent Use of ‘Taj’ Hotel Trademark Restrained with Damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs

Trademarks and Family Disputes: Without an Agreement in Writing, Trademarks Cannot be Deemed to be Assigned

Subsequent User’s ‘Suguna’ Trademark for Grinders Rectified Despite Proof of Use from 2001

Hot Mess? Court says “HOT MIX” is for everyone!

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us