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
· Section 29 · trade-marks-act-1999
Ashiana 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 InjunctionLicenceTrade MarksChristian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.
An e-commerce platform is not automatically entitled to the safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 merely because it calls itself an intermediary; the exemption applies only where the platform's role…
CounterfeitingE-commerceIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementCopyrightDr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
An injunction against use of a registered artistic work follows the artistic work onto any label, not merely the one impugned in the plaint. In Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings justification is no defence: so long as an order stand…
Contempt of InjunctionCounterfeitingExemplary CostsOrder XXXIX Rule 2ATrade 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 MarksMarico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited
A trade mark consisting of ordinary descriptive words remains vulnerable to a competitor's bona fide descriptive use under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, notwithstanding registration; such a mark attains pr…
Descriptive MarksDistinctivenessGeneric MarksPassing OffTrade 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 MarksNew Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
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 OffTrade MarksOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)
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 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 Dress