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.
8 results
for “Well-known Mark”
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 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 MarksDaimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan
A trade mark that has attained an extraordinary worldwide reputation is entitled to protection against use on entirely unrelated goods, since such unauthorised use dilutes and demeans the distinctiveness of the mark; delay or hone…
Delay And AcquiescenceDilutionPassing OffTrademark InfringementTrade 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 MarksIndustria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
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 SimilarityTrade MarksNandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
Registration in a particular class of goods does not confer a monopoly over the entire class; likelihood of confusion under Section 11 must be assessed by the real nature and target consumers of the competing goods, and honest, lo…
ClassificationDeceptive SimilarityDissimilar GoodsHonest Concurrent 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 DressTrade MarksTata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr.
Use of a registered trade mark in a non-commercial context, for the purpose of parody, satire or criticism of the proprietor's conduct, does not amount to infringement or dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, …
Comparative AdvertisingDilutionFreedom Of SpeechParody