High Court of Delhi | Justice S. Ravindra Bhat | 7 January 2010 I.A. Nos. 12940/2009, 12941/2009 & 12942/2009 in CS(OS) 1894/2009 BACKGROUND The plaintiff, ITC Limited, is described in the pleadings as one of India’s largest private sector companies with an annual turnover of Rs. 23,144 crores, engaged in diverse businesses including hotels, […]
ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA and Others Read More »
A trademark is not merely a badge of origin it is a commercial asset of potentially enormous value, capable of generating revenue far beyond the direct sale of the goods or services to which it is attached. The mechanisms through which that value is extracted and shared between the proprietor of the mark and third
Trademark Licensing and Registered User Agreements Read More »
High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Notice of Motion No. 230 of 2015 in Suit (L) No. 957 of 2014 Decided on 20 July 2016 Judge: Justice A.K. Menon Citation: 2017 (69) PTC 79 (Bom) Background Raymond Limited is a company based in Mumbai and is the successor to Raymond Woollen Mills Limited. It
Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Read More »
Delhi High Court | CS(OS) No. 41/2008 | I.A. No. 279/2008 Decided on 9 April 2009 Judge: Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw Citation: 2009 (41) PTC 284 (Del) Background Rolex SA is a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is headquartered in Geneva. The company traces its origins to 1905 when Hans Wilsdorf established
The law of passing off occupies a foundational position in the Indian intellectual property landscape. It is the common law action through which traders protect the goodwill and reputation they have built in their unregistered marks, trade names, get-up and other indicia of commercial identity against misappropriation by competitors who seek to exploit that reputation
Passing Off in India – Elements, Evidence and Remedies Read More »
Delhi High Court | CS(COMM) 564/2022 & I.A. 12961/2022 Summons issued: 22 August 2022 | Final Order: 30 November 2022 Judge: Justice Amit Bansal Citation: CS(COMM) 564/2022 (Delhi High Court IPD) Background Starbucks Corporation is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington in the United States of America. Its predecessor opened
Trademark law exists to protect two distinct but related interests simultaneously. It protects the proprietor of a registered mark against the unauthorized use of that mark by others who would free-ride on the reputation and goodwill that the proprietor has built. And it protects consumers against confusion – against the risk that they will be
Trademark Infringement under Section 29 – A Complete Analysis Read More »
Delhi High Court | I.A. No. 10115 of 1998 in Suit No. 2469 of 1998 Decided on 19 February 1999 Judge: Dr. M.K. Sharma J. Background Yahoo Inc. is an American company that has been operating as a global Internet media service provider under the trademark and domain name “Yahoo!” since 1994. The domain name
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | FAO(OS) No. 352/2010 Decided on 1 November 2010 Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Valmiki J. Mehta Background Marico Limited was the registered proprietor of the trademarks “LOSORB” and “LO-SORB” in Class 29 covering edible oils and allied products. The registrations were effective from 28 May 2001 and
The Register of Trade Marks is not an immutable document. While registration confers significant legal presumptions in favour of the proprietor and is treated as prima facie evidence of validity under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the register is not beyond challenge. Marks may find their way onto the register through error,
Trademark Rectification Proceedings – Sections 57 to 60 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Read More »