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

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

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

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

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

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

COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors Featured image for COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of a deceptively similar COCOMELON trademark registered by the respondent. Treasure Studio Inc., the creators of the globally recognized children’s brand, successfully secured relief, ensuring stronger protection for its distinctive trademark and intellectual property rights.

Read more about COCOMELON spells a ‘Melon’cholic end for Copycat Competitors

Polo rides to the finish line in trademark infringement dispute

Polo rides to the finish line in trademark infringement dispute Featured image for Polo rides to the finish line in trademark infringement dispute

The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction to Polo Lauren Company L.P. against Landmark Traders and Mystic Emin Private Ltd., holding that the defendants infringed Polo’s trademarks. The case highlighted the test for trademark infringement and emphasized the presumption of confusion in identical marks and the need to prove confusion for deceptively similar marks.

Read more about Polo rides to the finish line in trademark infringement dispute

Importers Watch Out! Tag Heuer times out counterfeit watches

Importers Watch Out! Tag Heuer times out counterfeit watches Featured image for Importers Watch Out! Tag Heuer times out counterfeit watches

Tag Heuer S.A. successfully secured a court order for the destruction of counterfeit watches imported by Tinya International. The court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 in damages, plus further compensation, after finding clear evidence of trademark infringement. The ruling underscores the consequences of importing counterfeit goods and highlights the benefits of trademark protection and mediation.

Read more about Importers Watch Out! Tag Heuer times out counterfeit watches

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

Lacoste chomps down Crocodile, wins injunction based on prior use of Trademark Featured image for 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.

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

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

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation Featured image for 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.

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

Pharma company’s buttery slip : Court Stops Trademark Infringement of ‘AMUL’

Pharma company’s buttery slip : Court Stops Trademark Infringement of ‘AMUL’ Featured image for Pharma company’s buttery slip : Court Stops Trademark Infringement of ‘AMUL’

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, prohibiting Bio Logic from using the “AMUL” trademark for pharmaceutical products. The court found Bio Logic’s use of the trademark deliberate and awarded Kaira Rs. 5,00,000 in damages and costs.

Read more about Pharma company’s buttery slip : Court Stops Trademark Infringement of ‘AMUL’

“Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court

“Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court Featured image for “Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court orders a fresh review of Seiwa Kasei’s ‘PHYTOCUTICLE’ trademark application, challenging the Registrar’s refusal for lack of distinctiveness.

Read more about “Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court