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.
50 results
for “SUPREME”
R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.
Copyright protects only the particular form of expression of an idea, theme, subject matter or plot, and never the idea itself. Substantial similarity of theme between two works is not infringement if the treatment, incidents and …
Copyright InfringementDramatic WorkIdea-Expression DichotomyOriginalityTrade 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 MarksS.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
Not good law on the test of deceptive similarity: see Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001). Retained for its historical significance and its discussion of interim relief.
Deceptive SimilarityEssential FeaturesInterim InjunctionPICNICTrade 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 MarksThe Supreme Industries Limited v. Moorthi Rabeha
Refusal of registration of a word on its own does not prevent a proprietor from enforcing registered formative marks of which that word is the essential feature, absent pleaded prosecution history estoppel.
Formative MarksInterim InjunctionProsecution History EstoppelSUPREMETrade 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 MarksUniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Where priority of use rests on disputed evidence such as small sales volumes, and questions of honest concurrent use arise, an interim injunction requires a strong prima facie case; failing that, courts may decline injunctions to …
Interim InjunctionPassing OffPlywoodPrior UseTrade MarksWander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd.
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order on an interlocutory injunction unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or contrary to settled principles.
Appellate InterferenceDiscretionInterim InjunctionPassing Off