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”
Neon 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 MarksParle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore
Deceptive similarity is judged by the overall impression on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not by a side-by-side comparison of details.
Deceptive SimilarityGet-upImperfect RecollectionInfringementTrade MarksParle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Where two parties file competing applications for registration of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis, priority for registration under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is determined…
Approbation and ReprobationPrior RegistrationPriorityProposed to be UsedTrade MarksPeople Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.
Where defendants dishonestly continue to exploit a well-known online mark and leave the suit uncontested, the court may decree infringement and passing off and award substantial costs.
CostsDishonest AdoptionDomain NamesEx Parte DecreeTrade MarksPepsi Co., Inc. & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. & Anr.
A trader may puff its own goods and compare them with a rival's, but may not denigrate or ridicule a competitor's product or mark; disparagement is judged from the intent, manner of presentation, storyline and overall message of t…
Comparative AdvertisingDisparagementInterim InjunctionTelevision CommercialsTrade MarksPernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Composite marks must be compared as a whole. A proprietor cannot combine features drawn from different marks to build a case of infringement, and cannot claim exclusivity over a common or laudatory element of a composite mark, or …
Anti-Dissection RuleCommon to the TradeComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade MarksPerundurai Chennimalai Gounder v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
A registered mark cannot be removed from the Register without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Act, including notice to the proprietor; a removal made without it will be set aside.
Natural JusticePrior NoticeRemoval of Trade MarkRestorationTrade MarksPower Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Where infringement of a trade mark, copyright and design is prima facie established, an injunction pending the suit should ordinarily follow; defences such as acquiescence must be established on the facts.
AcquiescenceDelayInterim InjunctionMixer Grinders