Open the app
IP Lex · Indian IP case law

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.

Clear filters

5 results

for “Anti-Dissection Rule”

Trade Marks

Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 2022:DHC:005711

While composite trade marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, it is permissible to examine a dominant or significant common element in determining the overall commercial impression, and a composite mark m…

Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade Dress
Trade Marks

Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 778/2024 (with I.A. 38970/2024)

Even a registered proprietor may be restrained from using a trade mark where the ingredients of passing off are established. Section 27(2) preserves the common-law remedy of passing off notwithstanding the statutory rights arising…

Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityDishonest AdoptionPassing Off
Trade Marks

Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024, I.A. 33885/2024

Section 11(2) does not require an earlier mark to have a formal declaration of well-known status before its owner can oppose a later mark; the provision only requires that the mark is well known. The term 'entitled' in Explanation…

Anti-Dissection RuleBad FaithDeceptive SimilarityPhonetic Similarity
Trade Marks

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 962/2025

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 Off
Trade Marks

Under Armour, Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 2023:DHC:2711

Although composite marks must be compared in their entirety under the anti-dissection rule, a mark may contain a dominant element that contributes disproportionately to its overall commercial impression, and such a dominant elemen…

Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant Mark