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.
12 results
for “Well-known Trade Mark”
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 MarksDaimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan
A trade mark that has attained an extraordinary worldwide reputation is entitled to protection against use on entirely unrelated goods, since such unauthorised use dilutes and demeans the distinctiveness of the mark; delay or hone…
Delay And AcquiescenceDilutionPassing OffTrademark InfringementTrade MarksHamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
While composite trade marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, it is permissible to examine a dominant or significant common element in determining the overall commercial impression, and a composite mark m…
Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade DressTrade MarksHavells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
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 OffTrade MarksIndustria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
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 SimilarityTrade MarksMarriott Worldwide Corporation v. Hotel Marriot Prime & Anr.
Where a defendant fails to contest a commercial suit despite service and a subsisting interim injunction, a court may grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure without recording oral evidence; and a …
DamagesDeceptive SimilarityPassing OffTrademark InfringementTrade MarksN.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation & Anr.
A passing off action does not depend on registration of the mark in the country where protection is sought, and the goodwill necessary to sustain such an action may be established through transborder reputation built up by adverti…
GoodwillInterim InjunctionPassing OffTransborder ReputationTrade MarksNandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
Registration in a particular class of goods does not confer a monopoly over the entire class; likelihood of confusion under Section 11 must be assessed by the real nature and target consumers of the competing goods, and honest, lo…
ClassificationDeceptive SimilarityDissimilar GoodsHonest Concurrent UseTrade MarksReliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
In assessing the likelihood of confusion for interim relief, courts must apply a more stringent standard where the infringing goods are edible products sold through online marketplaces to unsophisticated consumers, since even mino…
Dynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPassing OffTrade DressTrade MarksRenaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors.
Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act applies only to marks used on dissimilar goods or services and cannot be invoked where the defendant's goods or services are identical to those of the registered proprietor, which instead falls…
Deceptive SimilarityDilutionSection 29(4)Trademark Infringement