Dabur Archives | BananaIP

Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application

Delhi High Court revives Dabur’s ODONIL MYSTIC ROSE trademark application, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition. Continue Reading Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application

May 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 510Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

Recent rulings spotlight service notice issues and trademark similarity. The Delhi High Court addresses ‘HP-40 vs WD-40’ similarity and rectifies an opposition notice lapse for ‘ASLI AMLA, SIRF DABUR AMLA’. Continue Reading Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

March 4, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 439Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

In this case, the Delhi High Court explored if a trademark opposition be ‘deemed as abandoned’ if there was a delay in service of evidence by the opponent in the opposition. The Court also explained whether the timelines mentioned in the Trade Marks Act and Rules are mandatory or not. Continue Reading Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

February 13, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 845Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Youtuber Held Liable for Unauthorized Use of Trademarks: Dabur India Limited v. Dhruv Rathee and Ors.

The petitioner, Dabur, who is the manufacturer of beverages under the name “Real”, is alleging that a Youtuber named Dhruv Rathee published a video tarnishing the petitioner’s brand reputation. The video also depicted an earlier advertisement aired, as well as a distorted image of the petitioner’s product Real, which infringes upon its trademark and copyright rights. The Calcutta High Court held that the acts of the respondent infringed upon the petitioner’s rights under section 29 (9) of the Trade Marks…