Intellectual Property Rights | Passing Off | Trade Mark

H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

2018 (74) PTC 229 (Del) Brief facts: Plaintiff, was a well-known designer, marketer, and seller of wide and varied fashionable clothing collection and ancillary product and services for women, men, teenagers, and children. To firmly and formally establish its presence in India, Plaintiff No. 1 claimed to have incorporated its subsidiary H & M Hennes…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark

Vishnudas v. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco. Ltd.

366 1996 SCALE (5) 267 Brief Facts: Respondent was engaged in the business of manufacturing cigarettes under the brand name “Charminar”. Respondent obtained the registration of the said trade mark in respect of manufacturing tobacco in class 34. Respondent since its incorporation was engaged only in the manufacturing of cigarettes. Appellant was in the manufacturing…

Intellectual Property Rights | Passing Off | Trade Mark

T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

T. V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 85 Brief Facts: Ashika Incense Incorporated, a sole proprietor firm of Appellant was established in 1988 at Bangalore dealing in the manufacturing and selling of the incense stick. Appellant in the year 1993 had honestly and bona fidely adopted the trademark “Eenadu” which…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited 2018 (75) PTC 209 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondent, was using the trademark ‘NANDINI’ for milk and milk products from the year 1985. The Respondent had also registered the said mark in Classes 29 and 30. The Appellant adopted the mark ‘NANDHINI’ in 1989 and had a restaurant…

Articles | FLIPSTAAN | ICL Exclusive | Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

flIPstaan: ‘ANGREZI MEDIUM’ AND THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING STRONG BRANDS

SEASON 1 EPISODE 3 – 27th September, 2020 “Aur Jahaan Tak Mhaari Beti Ka Sawaal Hai Wo To Trueford University Jaakar Rahegi, Nahi To Main Ghasiteram Todarmal Ko Par-Poto Nahi” – Champak Bansal, Angrezi Medium Introduction The above quoted dialogue could be loosely translated as “And so far as my daughter is concerned, she will…

Intellectual Property Rights | Passing Off | Trade Mark

K. Narayanan and Ors. v. S. Murali

Citation: 2008 (10) SCC 479 Brief Facts: Appellants were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling banana chips and had adopted the trademark ‘A-ONE’ in 1986. Appellants had applied for trade mark registration before the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai in 1999. The said application was pending at the time of the present Civil…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

M/S Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. M/S Patanjali Ayurveda Limited & Anr.; Order disposing Interim Application

M/S Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. M/S Patanjali Ayurveda Limited & Anr. Date of decison: 06.08.2020 Madras High Court For brief facts and history of litigation, you can refer our post on ex-parte order here. We are not repeating the same for sake of brevity. The present summary is of the order on the adjudication…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.  Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…

Disparagement | Intellectual Property Rights | Uncategorized

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II

In our last post on the above subject captioned matter, we had covered the Brief Facts of the matter, the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the present matter and the key takeaways from the said decision. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge had granted a temporary injunction towards the removal of said video. The…

Disparagement | Intellectual Property Rights | Uncategorized

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I

The Bombay High Court in earlier part of the year 2020, has dealt with the case of permissible limits of action of viewers who review products or services. The decision is in the case of Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali[1] wherein the Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained by an order…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant manufactured whisky under the mark ‘Peter Scot’ since the year 1968. Respondents, an industry body of distillers, blenders and exporters of Scotch whisky, learnt about the Appellant’s trade mark application in 1974.[1] Respondents had…