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”
Refex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
A company name identical to or closely resembling an existing company's name and mark may be ordered to be changed, and the Regional Director's refusal to do so can be set aside in writ jurisdiction by the IP Division.
Company NameRectification of NameRegional DirectorTrade NameTrade MarksReliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
In assessing the likelihood of confusion for interim relief, courts must apply a more stringent standard where the infringing goods are edible products sold through online marketplaces to unsophisticated consumers, since even mino…
Dynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPassing OffTrade DressTrade 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 MarksRolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Protection of a well-known trade mark extends to dissimilar goods such as jewellery where use is likely to take unfair advantage of or harm its reputation; compensatory and punitive damages may be awarded.
Dissimilar GoodsInfringementJewelleryPassing OffTrade 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 InjunctionPICNICCopyrightSanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. v. Narayani Trading Company
Copyright registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 is not mandatory to institute or maintain a suit for infringement; copyright subsists automatically in an original work upon its creation, and Sections 44, 45 and 48 merely crea…
Artistic WorkCopyright InfringementCopyright RegistrationEvidentiary PresumptionTrade 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 Off