Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Rights’ Disputes: An Affirmative Step
by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta
by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta
The Delhi High Court held that the marks ‘WhiteHat Jr’ and ‘WhiteHat Sr’ were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘WhiteHat Jr’.
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.
The Delhi High Court, in a suit for trade mark infringement by a habitual cyber squatter, Namase Patel over Adobe’s marks ‘ADOBE’, ‘PHOTOSHOP’ and ‘SPARK’, granted Rs. 2 Crore as damages to Adobe.
Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name ‘www.dream11.bet’ and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks.
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar
Delhi High Court: While deciding a case related to the product and mark ‘ROOH AFZA’, the Single Judge Bench of
by Murali Neelakantan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 20
Karnataka High Court: P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose
“Copyright Act gives a range of rights and privileges to the first owner of copyright without requiring prior registration.”
Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao J. rejected an application for permanent injunction by a pharmaceutical company against a rival brand, seeking
Madras High Court: C. V. Karthikeyan, J., granted temporary injunction and restrained “Patanjali” from using the word ‘CORONIL’ as the plaintiff has the
Madras High Court: In a petition filed for the scrutiny of Section 85 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 dealing with the qualification
Delhi High Court: In a huge relief to the “Make my trip (India) Pvt.Ltd”, a pioneer in online travel industry, who had
The Central Government vide notification dated August 1, 2014, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157 (1); & (2) of