Trademarks Archives | Page 4 of 68

Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of Trademark

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

October 23, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 331Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Volvo drives home a victory in Trademark ‘Volvo Pump’ dispute

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

October 22, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 208Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Use of e-Rickshaw Trademark ‘Yatri’ by Competitor Restrained

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

October 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 228Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

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

October 18, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 255Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

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

October 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 273Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan

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

October 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 347Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles

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

October 14, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 235Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

“CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed L’Oréal India’s appeal to cancel the CLARIWASH trademark, affirming that no deceptive similarity exists between L’Oréal’s CLARI-formative marks and the CLARIWASH mark. Continue Reading “CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

October 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 250Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal, upholding an interim injunction favoring Himalaya Wellness in the ‘Evecare’ trademark dispute. The court found that Wipro’s use of the identical mark for its female hygiene product created a likelihood of confusion with Himalaya’s Ayurvedic uterine tonic, which had been in use since 1997. The decision emphasized the precedence of prior use over trademark registration in cases of passing off. Continue Reading Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

October 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 288Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Abbott Laboratories, restricting the circulation of an advertisement for Ensure Diabetes Care. HUL argued that Abbott’s advertisement disparaged its Horlicks Diabetes Plus by creating a misleading impression. The court found merit in HUL’s claims, noting the ad’s intent to undermine its competitor. Continue Reading Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court

October 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 324Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of Trademark

Volvo drives home a victory in Trademark ‘Volvo Pump’ dispute

Use of e-Rickshaw Trademark ‘Yatri’ by Competitor Restrained

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles

“CLARIWASH” Cleans Up: L’Oréal’s Trademark appeal drenched

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us