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.
9 results
for “Trade Dress”
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd.
A single suit combining a cause of action for infringement of a registered design with a cause of action for passing off is maintainable under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where both claims flow from the sa…
Composite SuitCopyright Design OverlapDesign InfringementPassing OffDesignsDiageo Brands B.V. & Anr. v. Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt. Ltd.
The test for infringement of a registered design under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 is whether the design, viewed by an instructed or knowledgeable observer aware of the prior art, is identical or an obvious or fraudulent i…
Design InfringementFunctionalityNoveltyScope Of Design ProtectionTrade MarksHamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
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 DressTrade 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 MarksInfringementDesignsMohan Lal, Proprietor of Mourya Industries v. Sona Paint & Hardwares
Design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000 and passing off are separate causes of action resting on different rights, standards and defences; since a registered design is a time-bound statutory monopoly that enters the public…
Composite SuitCopyright Design OverlapDesign InfringementDesign RegistrationCopyrightOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Copyright)
A defendant cannot defend a copyright infringement suit on the basis of a registration that has been cancelled by an unchallenged rectification order which found the artistic work to be a copy of the plaintiff's pre-existing get-u…
Artistic WorkColourable ImitationCopyright RectificationLabel DesignTrade 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 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 DressDesignsWhirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd.
In an action for design piracy under the Designs Act, 2000, infringement is tested by comparing the overall visual impression of the two articles judged solely by the eye; a defendant's own subsequent design registration for a sim…
Deceptive SimilarityDesign InfringementDesign PiracyPassing Off