Trademark Infringement Archives

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court’s decision in the Unisn vs. Unison case provides critical insights into evaluating trademark infringement. The court emphasized a holistic view of trademarks, considering the distinctiveness of goods and services, thereby ruling out the likelihood of confusion. This case reinforces the importance of product differentiation in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

August 13, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 527Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

The Bombay High Court in Atyati vs. Cognizant emphasized the critical need for full and transparent disclosure in ex-parte injunctions, ruling against Atyati for suppressing material facts. This case highlights the importance of integrity in the judicial process, especially in intellectual property disputes. Continue Reading Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

August 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 328Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Novartis says No to Novarish

In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court granted Novartis AG an ad-interim injunction against Novarish Healthcare Private Limited for trademark infringement. Novartis successfully argued that Novarish’s use of the “NOVARISH” mark was deceptively similar to its well-known “NOVARTIS” trademark, leading to the court’s decision to protect Novartis’s intellectual property rights. Continue Reading Novartis says No to Novarish

August 7, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 376Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants 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

July 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 262Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of MRF Limited in a trademark and copyright infringement case against Powermax Rubber Factory and Powermax Tyre, granting a permanent injunction and awarding nominal damages. The court found Powermax’s use of similar logos likely to cause consumer confusion and mislead the public. Continue Reading MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

July 1, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 480Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion. Continue Reading Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

June 25, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 465Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced a decree favoring Glaxo Group Limited against Mr. Rajiv Mukul, restraining the use of ‘BETNEVIN’ due to trademark infringement of ‘BETNESOL’. The Court upheld that infringement determination could be made in an execution petition to enforce the decree of injunction. Continue Reading Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

June 24, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 336Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

In this infringement and passing off case filed by Sun Pharma against Glenmark, the Court was asked to determine if the trademark “INDAMET” infringes upon the trademark “ISTAMET XR CP”. Sun Pharma’s “ISTAMET XR CP” was registered in 2014 by its predecessor in title, and Glenmark’s trademark, INDAMET, was registered in 2021. Continue Reading Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

April 25, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 651Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

The dispute centers on the “PEBBLE” mark used by V Guard and Crompton. V Guard, adopting it in 2013 for electric water heaters, clashed with Crompton’s 2020 application for “CROMPTON PEBBLE” for electric irons. Delhi High Court’s injunction restrained Crompton from using “PEBBLE,” citing Trade Marks Act violations. The Court upheld V Guard’s reputation, dismissing Crompton’s appeal. Continue Reading Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

April 24, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 773Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

A battle of SMITHS. Who owns the rights over the word 'SMITH'?

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court ruled in the case of A.O. Smith Corporation v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the defendants’ plea in a trademark infringement dispute. The court upheld A.O. Smith’s claim, restraining the defendants from using marks ‘STAR SMITH’ and ‘BLUE DIAMOND,’ citing potential confusion and dishonest adoption. Continue Reading A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

April 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 495Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

Novartis says No to Novarish

Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants Permanent Injunction

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us