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 | Suit No. 159 of 1999 Decided on 9 March 2001 Judge: Justice Mukul Mudgal Citation: 2001 PTC 432 (Del) | 90 (2001) DLT 659 | 2001 (58) DRJ 306 Background Tata Sons Limited is one of the oldest and largest business conglomerates in India. The company has been the registered proprietor
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 »
Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001 Decided on 29 November 2017 Background P.M. Diesels Ltd. was the registered owner of three trademarks all carrying the words “Field Marshal.” The registrations dated back to 1964 and 1968 and covered the marks “Field Marshal,” “Field Marshal” in a specific lettering style and
Patel Field Marshal Agencies & Anr. v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. & Ors. Read More »
Bombay High Court | February 10, 2003 | 2004 (28) PTC 193 (Bom) S.J. Vazifdar, J. Background The trademark “M-Seal” has a long and well-documented history. It was first used in 1968 by Mahindra Van Wijk and Visser Ltd. in respect of epoxy resin compositions used for cementing cracks, holes and leaks in metal articles.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs. S.M. Associates & Ors. Read More »
The journey of a trademark application from the moment it is filed to the point at which it is accepted for advertisement is one of the most consequential phases in the entire registration process. It is during this period that the Trade Marks Registry scrutinizes the application against the requirements of the Trade Marks Act,
Trademark Examination in India – From Filing to Acceptance Read More »
Allahabad High Court | January 23, 1985 | AIR 1985 All 242 A. Banerji, J. Background Bata India Limited is one of India’s most iconic commercial names, having been associated with the manufacture and sale of footwear and related products since before the enactment of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The name “Bata” derives from
Bata India Limited vs. Pyare Lal & Co., Meerut City & Ors. Read More »
Supreme Court of India | April 26, 1990 | 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 M.N. Venkatachaliah, N.D. Ojha & J.S. Verma, JJ. Background Wander Ltd. was the registered proprietor of the trademark “Cal-De-Ce” in respect of vitaminsed Calcium Gluconate Tablets. In March 1986, Wander Ltd. entered into a manufacturing agreement with Antox India (P) Ltd.,