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.
97 results
for “Trade Mark”
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua 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 MarksAlkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd.
A mark that describes the nature of the product, such as A TO Z for a complete multivitamin, is descriptive and generic and does not ordinarily support an interim injunction.
A TO ZDescriptive MarksGeneric MarksMultivitaminsTrade MarksAmazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016, being advisory executive instructions without the force of law, cannot bind e-commerce platforms. Once goods bearing a registered trade mark have been put on the market with the proprietor's co…
E-commerceExhaustion Of RightsIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade MarksAmerican Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.
A proprietor may validly register a mark proposed to be used through a registered user, and such a registration is not liable to removal for non-use merely because the proprietor itself has not used the mark.
Foreign ProprietorNon-useProposed UseRectificationTrade 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 InjunctionLicence