Trademark Infringement Archives | Page 3 of 12

Use of e-Rickshaw Trademark ‘Yatri’ by Competitor Restrained

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

October 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 341Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

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

October 18, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 376Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

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

October 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 381Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against social media influencer Prashant Desai, restraining him from publishing disparaging content about Zydus Wellness’ trademark “COMPLAN.” The court found that Desai’s statements about the product’s sugar content were misleading and unsupported by scientific evidence, directing the removal of his videos and posts to prevent further harm to the brand’s reputation. Continue Reading Court Orders Take Down of Influencer’s Disparaging Videos and Posts about Sugar in Complan

October 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 498Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles

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

October 14, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 337Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Passing Off Suit: ‘LUX’ Trademark Protected by Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Biswanath Hosiery Mills, holding that Micky Metals’ use of the “LUX TMT” mark constituted passing off. The Court granted a permanent injunction, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs’ trademark rights extended even to dissimilar goods. Continue Reading Passing Off Suit: ‘LUX’ Trademark Protected by Calcutta High Court

October 3, 2024 IP AI Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 480Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Good Karma prevails for Upakarma yet again, court affirms injunction against Trademark infringement

The Delhi High Court dismissed Rasayanam Enterprises’ appeal against an injunction in a trademark infringement case concerning the deceptive packaging of Shilajit. The court found Rasayanam’s 20 gm packaging deceptively similar to Upakarma Ayurveda’s trademark, thus upholding the interim injunction, emphasizing consumer confusion in competitive products. Continue Reading Good Karma prevails for Upakarma yet again, court affirms injunction against Trademark infringement

October 1, 2024 IP AI Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 466Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

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

September 30, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 724Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Flipkart’s Latching On Feature and Trademark Passing Off

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Modern Mold Plast, directing Flipkart to block unauthorized sellers from using the ‘MAHARAJA’ trademarks on its platform. The court confirmed that unauthorized sellers latching onto existing listings amounted to passing off and infringing upon the plaintiffs’ trademark rights. Continue Reading Flipkart’s Latching On Feature and Trademark Passing Off

September 25, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 654Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

“Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings, restraining the defendants from infringing on the “Liv.52” trademark and using deceptively similar packaging. The court also appointed local commissioners to seize infringing products and gather evidence at the defendants’ premises. Continue Reading “Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

September 24, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 507Views 3Likes

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Use of e-Rickshaw Trademark ‘Yatri’ by Competitor Restrained

Nandini Deluxe v. Hotel Nandini: Court holds that both can continue using their trademarks

VIVO sticks strong against VIVO adhesives, rewarded with well-known trademark status in India

VANS obtains injunction against Trademark infringement under John Doe principles

Passing Off Suit: ‘LUX’ Trademark Protected by Calcutta High Court

Good Karma prevails for Upakarma yet again, court affirms injunction against Trademark infringement

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

Flipkart’s Latching On Feature and Trademark Passing Off

“Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

Connect with Us

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

Connect with us