Trademarks - Intellepedia

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

Amazon Ordered to Pay ₹336 Crore in Damages for Willful Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay ₹336 crore in damages for willful trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo. The ruling also includes ₹3.23 crore in litigation costs and a permanent injunction against Amazon. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., highlights Amazon’s liability in unauthorized brand usage.

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Can you reuse a discarded bottle to refill and sell your own goods or products?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., prohibiting the reuse of embossed beer bottles. The decision upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order, stating that reusing marked bottles leads to consumer deception and violates intellectual property rights. The appeal overturned the previous order, reinforcing legal protections for trademarks in the beer industry.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.

‘Big Dipper’ trademark infringement case, ruling on transborder reputation and importers’ rights

The Delhi High Court ruled on a trademark dispute between ‘Big Dipper’ and ‘Big Deeper,’ setting aside an ex parte injunction. The case centered on the assertion of transborder reputation by importers of the ‘Big Dipper’ mark. The Court relied on precedent to determine that mere global reputation is insufficient to claim trademark protection in India. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded ₹7,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance’s reputation.

Court reiterates importance of protecting consumers from confusion in case of pharma products

The Delhi High Court deliberated a trademark infringement case between Modi MundiPharma and Win Health Pharma. Allegations of deceptively similar trademarks in pharmaceutical products were raised, with the Court emphasizing the risk of consumer confusion. The application to challenge the validity of the defendant’s marks was disposed of, framing key issues on the marks’ invalidity.

Category: Trademarks