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 “trademark infringement”
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016, being advisory executive instructions without the force of law, cannot bind e-commerce platforms. Once goods bearing a registered trade mark have been put on the market with the proprietor's co…
E-commerceExhaustion Of RightsIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade MarksChristian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.
An e-commerce platform is not automatically entitled to the safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 merely because it calls itself an intermediary; the exemption applies only where the platform's role…
CounterfeitingE-commerceIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade 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 Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.
In comparative advertising, a trader may compare one or more material, relevant and verifiable features of its product with a competitor's, including price, without being obliged to disclose every attribute of the rival's goods; f…
Comparative AdvertisingDisparagementHonest PracticesSection 29(8)Trade MarksMarriott Worldwide Corporation v. Hotel Marriot Prime & Anr.
Where a defendant fails to contest a commercial suit despite service and a subsisting interim injunction, a court may grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure without recording oral evidence; and a …
DamagesDeceptive SimilarityPassing OffTrademark InfringementTrade 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 MarksSnapdeal Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC & Ors.
A domain name registrar that sources alternative domain names from a common registry through an automated algorithm is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; merely making such domain names …
CybersquattingDomain NamesIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade MarksSun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Mere delay in approaching the Court is not, by itself, sufficient to refuse an injunction, particularly in the pharmaceutical field where confusion between similar marks may also affect public interest.
Deceptive SimilarityDelayInterim InjunctionPANTOCIDTrade MarksUnder Armour, Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.
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