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.
14 results
for “Registered Proprietor”
Acqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Section 11(2) does not require a mark to have been formally declared well-known before its proprietor can invoke that status to oppose a similar or identical mark on dissimilar goods; it is enough that the mark is, in substance, e…
Bad Faith AdoptionCross-class ProtectionOppositionRemandTrade MarksCorn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
In opposition proceedings, the reputation of a trade mark for assessing likelihood of confusion attaches to the mark itself and not merely to the reputation of the proprietor; deceptive similarity may be found even between goods t…
Deceptive SimilarityGoods Of Same DescriptionOppositionReputation Of MarkTrade MarksHavells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
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 OffTrade MarksKaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
An action for infringement of a registered trade mark is a statutory remedy in which the use of a deceptively similar mark is itself actionable regardless of get-up, packaging or intent to deceive, whereas an action for passing of…
Acquired DistinctivenessDeceptive SimilarityDescriptive MarksInfringementTrade MarksMarico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited
A trade mark consisting of ordinary descriptive words remains vulnerable to a competitor's bona fide descriptive use under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, notwithstanding registration; such a mark attains pr…
Descriptive MarksDistinctivenessGeneric MarksPassing OffTrade 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 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 MarkInfringement