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.
24 results
for “Deceptive Similarity”
Nandhini 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 MarksNeon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.
Under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, actual continuous prior use of a mark in the market prevails over a rival's earlier-dated application for registration where the registrant remained inactive for a prolonged period; t…
Deceptive SimilarityNon-usePassing OffPrior UserTrade 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 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 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 InfringementGeographical IndicationsScotch Whisky Association & Anr. v. Pravara Sahakari Shakar Karkhana Ltd.
Reputation and goodwill in a geographical class name vest collectively in the genuine producers of that class of goods, entitling any of them to restrain, by a passing off action, a trader who uses get-up, imagery or descriptive w…
Deceptive SimilarityExtended Passing OffGeographical IndicationPassing OffTrade 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 InjunctionPANTOCID