Case LawActs & SectionsOpen the app
IP Intelligence

Search Indian IP Case Law

Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.

Clear filters

7 results

for “Deceptive Similarity”

Trade Marks

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2025

Section 11(2) does not require a mark to have been formally declared well-known before its proprietor can invoke that status to oppose a similar or identical mark on dissimilar goods; it is enough that the mark is, in substance, e…

Bad Faith AdoptionCross-class ProtectionOppositionRemand
Trade Marks

Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 778/2024 (with I.A. 38970/2024)

Even a registered proprietor may be restrained from using a trade mark where the ingredients of passing off are established. Section 27(2) preserves the common-law remedy of passing off notwithstanding the statutory rights arising…

Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityDishonest AdoptionPassing Off
Trade Marks

Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024, I.A. 33885/2024

Section 11(2) does not require an earlier mark to have a formal declaration of well-known status before its owner can oppose a later mark; the provision only requires that the mark is well known. The term 'entitled' in Explanation…

Anti-Dissection RuleBad FaithDeceptive SimilarityPhonetic Similarity
Trade Marks

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 962/2025

Registration of a mark is no defence to a passing off action, since rights under Section 27(2) are independent of and override the bar in Section 28(3) on one registered proprietor suing another for infringement. Registration mere…

Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityInitial Interest ConfusionPassing Off
Trade Marks

Opella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 552/2024 & I.A. 32616/2024 (arising out of I.A. 4622/2025)

Where a coordinate bench, following an unchallenged rectification order, has found the mark in question deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the infri…

Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical MarksPrior Use
Trade Marks

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 200/2023, CM APPL. 47338-47340/2023

Mere delay in approaching the Court is not, by itself, sufficient to refuse an injunction, particularly in the pharmaceutical field where confusion between similar marks may also affect public interest.

Deceptive SimilarityDelayInterim InjunctionPANTOCID
Trade Marks

TV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.

Delhi High Court · RFA 320/2012 & CM APPL. 80300/2025

In a passing-off action the focus is on protecting the goodwill of the earlier user from a later use that is likely to create confusion or an impression of association. Actual confusion or loss need not always be proved; likelihoo…

AajTakDeceptive SimilarityDisclaimerGoodwill