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
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
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!
The Madras High Court appointed an arbitrator in the case of M. Rajaratnam vs. M/S. Raj Video Vision, rejecting claims of non-arbitrability. The court ruled that the dispute centered on the misuse of partnership assets, not merely copyright infringement, and thus could be resolved through arbitration. Continue Reading Copyright Disputes in Partnerships are Arbitrable
In a copyright dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining Navraj Infratech from using artistic architectural works of Countrywide Promoters. The court found prima facie infringement of copyright and passing off. The case is set for further hearings in January 2025. Continue Reading Copying of Artistic Architectural Works in Brochure for Advertising Restrained
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
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
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
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
The case of Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Ltd. involves a dispute over the issuance of a compulsory license under Section 31 of the Copyright Act for public performance rights. Al Hamd contends that the license fees charged by PPL were unreasonable, while PPL argues the petition is not maintainable. The Court has reserved its decision, keeping all issues open for further consideration. Continue Reading Compulsory licensing in copyrights, Al Hamd challenges PPL’s fees