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.
41 results
for “Registration”
Acqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAmrit Singh Mehta trading as Mehta Cosmetics v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Where a trade mark is registered after its normal renewal date, the proprietor is entitled to a six-month period from the actual date of registration to seek renewal. Further, a trade mark cannot be removed for non-renewal without…
Form O-2Form O-3Registration CertificateRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksAmritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Deceptive similarity between trade marks must be assessed by comparing the marks as a whole for their overall phonetic, visual and structural resemblance, from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recol…
AcquiescenceDeceptive SimilarityHonest Concurrent UseImperfect RecollectionTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksAshiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
A mere contractual promise to let someone adopt and use a mark is not the same as transferring ownership, where the contract makes ownership conditional on registration. Non-use of a mark for decades defeats a claim to common-law …
AssignmentDiscretionary OrderInterlocutory InjunctionLicenceGeographical IndicationsAsociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
Where two countries produce admittedly different goods known by the same name, the dispute falls to be resolved under Section 10 of the Geographical Indications Act as one of homonymous geographical indications, which permits and …
Community RightGeographical IndicationHomonymous GIPrior UserDesignsBharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited
A design's novelty and originality under the Designs Act must be assessed by comparing it, as applied to the specific article for which registration is sought, against prior art shown to have been applied to the same or a similar …
CancellationDesign RegistrationNoveltyOriginalityTrade MarksColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
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 ProtectionOppositionRemandTrade MarksCorn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
In opposition proceedings, the reputation of a trade mark for assessing likelihood of confusion attaches to the mark itself and not merely to the reputation of the proprietor; deceptive similarity may be found even between goods t…
Deceptive SimilarityGoods Of Same DescriptionOppositionReputation Of Mark