The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Sons, preventing the use of trademarks and trade dress similar to “TATA COPPER+ WATER.” The defendant ceased infringement and nominal damages of ₹1,00,000 were awarded, acknowledging the defendant’s cooperation and first-time offense. Continue Reading “TATA COPPER+ WATER” Trademark Infringement Injuncted with Nominal Damages
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
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
The Delhi District Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Samsung, preventing further sale of counterfeit headsets by several defendants. The Court confirmed trademark infringement and ordered the destruction of fake goods. Samsung was awarded litigation costs but punitive damages were denied. Continue Reading Fake Headsets? Not on Samsung’s Watch: Court Issues Permanent Injunction
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Heifer Project International against Heifer Project India Trust and Mr. Pran K Bhatt for trademark infringement. The ruling prevents the defendants from using the “Heifer” trademarks and mandates the destruction of all materials bearing the infringing marks. Nominal damages and costs were also awarded to the plaintiff. Continue Reading Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants Permanent Injunction
Recent trademark cases include the Delhi High Court’s decisions on a composite logo including ‘Patanjali’, Coca Cola’s ‘Kinley’ trade dress, and ‘Ball Head Racer’ packaging infringement. Continue Reading Patanjali for Education, Kenley for Water Bottles, and Head Racer Trade Dress enforcement
This post discusses three 2023 Delhi High Court cases on trademark infringement, where plaintiffs received litigation costs. Each involves infringement issues leading to injunctions against further use of the infringing marks. These cases demonstrate the enforcement of IP rights and the financial consequences of infringement in the Indian intellectual property landscape. Continue Reading Courts Award Litigation Costs In Recent Trademark Infringement Cases
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted relief to luxury brand Louis Vuitton Malletier by issuing a permanent injunction and awarding damages against three defendants involved in the manufacturing and selling of counterfeit goods bearing the Louis Vuitton trademarks. Continue Reading Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Louis Vuitton Against Counterfeiters: A Comprehensive Analysis
Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran v. S. Vijayaraghavan & Anr
The Plaintiff, Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran, wife of late Pulavar Keeran, a famous religious Hindu preacher and historian, sought a declaration from the Madras High Court that she was the rightful owner of the copyright of her husband’s works. She also filed for an injunction against the Defendants, asking them to surrender all master tapes containing original recordings of the speeches, lectures and discourses and in any other form like cassettes or CDs. …
M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. M/s. Nitin Productions & Anr
Defendant Nitin Productions assigned the copyright of the film “HUDUGAATA” in favour of the Plaintiff after receipt of the agreed consideration. By virtue of the agreement, the Plaintiff became the absolute copyright owner of the aforementioned film which included satellite rights, radio rights and other similar rights perpetually. However, Defendant M/s. Public TV, telecast songs from the film without obtaining prior permission. The Plaintiff, which held the copyright of…