Trademark Infringement Archives | Page 5 of 12

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 527Views 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 530Views 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 401Views 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 732Views 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 986Views 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 534Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court while deciding an application for interim injunction, held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks or pass off its products as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, instituted a civil suit, against Defendant 1, Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. ("SSPL"), and Defendant 2, Rachna Nitin Jindal, wife of Nitin Kumar Jindal, Manager of SSPL, based on its rights over the word mark “JINDAL” registered in classes 6 and 17. The Plaintiff’s case was that the…

March 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 650Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of…

March 14, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 808Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of Sterling Agro Industries, protecting their “NOVA” trademark for dairy products from a deceptively similar mark “NOVYA” used by ASR Trading Company. The Court noted the similarity in marks and packaging, the abandoned trademark application by ASR, and their its to prove otherwise, leading to a permanent injunction and penalty against the defendant. Continue Reading Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

March 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 489Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith. Continue Reading Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

March 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 705Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

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’?

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us