Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
If the court were to find that the material which is likely to be broadcast or published already exists in the public domain and has existed as such for a considerable period without an objection having been raised, that too would detract from the right of the plaintiff to seek ad interim injunctive relief.
The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
Madras High Court granted interim relief to Viacom 18, as it has made out a prima facie case on merits and the balance of convenience was also in its favour.
The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.
Fraud, as an exception to the rule of non-interference with encashment of bank guarantees, is not any fraud, but a fraud of an egregious nature, going to the root i.e., to the foundation of the bank guarantee and an established fraud. The entire case of the respondent fails to qualify for this.
The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.
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’.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Amitabh Bachchan for protection of his publicity rights against the fake Kaun
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 case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
Delhi High Court: In a case where Club Factory was involved in the sale of various unauthorized/ counterfeited products, bearing
The trademark RAJNIGANDHA has been declared as a well-known mark by this Court and is entitled to a high degree of protection. The impugned mark is visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,
While determining whether there is infringement of trademark, one is not required to see dissimilarity, but one is required to see similarity and there is similarity of all words except one word, in the present case.
The permanent injunction passed shall come into effect from 1-11-2022.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Colgate Palmolive Company (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark COLGATE,
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi (‘plaintiff’) seeking relief of permanent injunction and
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking temporary injunction as Polycab India Limited