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
Renaissance 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 InfringementTrade MarksRuston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.
Where the essential or dominant feature of a defendant's mark is deceptively similar to a registered trade mark, the addition of a descriptive, geographical or laudatory word does not by itself cure the infringement; for marks tha…
Composite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant MarkInfringementTrade MarksS. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai
Under the scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the rights of a prior user of a trade mark are superior to the rights flowing from registration, and the statutory remedy of passing off under Section 27(2) remains available to a pri…
Deceptive SimilarityGoodwillPassing OffPrior UserTrade MarksSatyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
A domain name has all the characteristics of a trade mark and is entitled to protection against passing off; the fact that the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not specifically legislate on domain names does not exclude a domain name fr…
Deceptive SimilarityDomain NamesGoodwillOnline InfringementTrade MarksSnapdeal Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC & Ors.
A domain name registrar that sources alternative domain names from a common registry through an automated algorithm is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; merely making such domain names …
CybersquattingDomain NamesIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade MarksSun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
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 InjunctionPANTOCIDTrade MarksTata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr.
Use of a registered trade mark in a non-commercial context, for the purpose of parody, satire or criticism of the proprietor's conduct, does not amount to infringement or dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, …
Comparative AdvertisingDilutionFreedom Of SpeechParodyTrade MarksToyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. & Ors.
The law of passing off in India is governed by the territoriality doctrine, under which a plaintiff must prove actual goodwill and reputation for its mark among a substantial section of purchasers within the Indian market at the r…
GoodwillPassing OffPrior UserTransborder ReputationTrade MarksTV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.
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 SimilarityDisclaimerGoodwillTrade MarksUnder Armour, Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.
Although composite marks must be compared in their entirety under the anti-dissection rule, a mark may contain a dominant element that contributes disproportionately to its overall commercial impression, and such a dominant elemen…
Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant Mark