| |

Worknest Business Centre LLP & Anr. v. M/s. Worknests Through Shri Rajesh Goel

IA No. 8773 of 2020 in CS (Comm) No. 406 of 2020 Date of decision: 21st March, 2023 Brief Facts: Plaintiffs’ Contentions: Defendants’ Contentions: Plaintiffs’ Rejoinder: Court’s Observations: Temporary Injunction was granted against the Defendants.

Delhivery Private Limited v. Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
| |

Delhivery Private Limited v. Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited

14th August, 2020 High Court of Delhi CS (Comm) No. 217 of 2020 Brief Facts: Plaintiff was engaged in the business of logistics, transportation and management under the Trademark “DELHIVERY” since 2011. Plaintiff had 27 registrations pertaining the mark ‘DELHIVERY’ under Classes 35, 39 and 42 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Defendant, on the…

| |

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…

Vishnudas v. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco. Ltd.
|

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…

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited
| |

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…

| |

Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call

Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call CS(Comm) No. 1381/2016 19th April, 2017 In October, 2016, Plaintiff, Mr Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP, registered proprietor of the trademark “THE DARZI, THE SUIT PEOPLE 1981” (Label Mark), instituted a suit against the Defendant, M/s Darzi on Call, for injunction restraining the Defendant from using…

aaLAWchak: The Founder
|

aaLAWchak: The Founder

Movie: The Founder Starring: Michael Keaton, Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, Linda Cardellini, Patrick Wilson, B. J. Novak and Laura Dern  Directed by: John Lee Hancock   Year of Release: 2016  “In the world of business intellectual capital has to be accompanied with passion and persistence” John Lee Hancock’s ‘The Founder’, is one of those rare…

| |

Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi

Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Rajasthan) Brief Facts: Appellant was proprietor of the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi, Ice Creams and other milk products. Appellant came to know that the Respondent is also using the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi. Appellant filed a suit for Permanent injunction against the Respondent along…

| |

Capital Plastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries

Capital Plastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries 1988 PTC 182 Brief Facts: As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff started using the trademark RABBER from 1983 in respect of thermos jug. Plaintiff also obtained Copyright registration in the artistic label bearing the mark RABBER in 1984. After September, 1985, Plaintiff dropped the usage of the mark…

| | | |

Delhi Public School Society v. DPS World Foundation and Anr.

Delhi Public School Society v. DPS World Foundation and Anr.  Delhi High Court 18.04.2016 Brief Facts: Plaintiff society was registered in the year 1948-49 as Delhi Public School. In 1948, Plaintiff first adopted the distinctive crest which is reproduced herein below: The said crest was registered under different classes under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002…

| |

Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.

Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.  2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for…

| |

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. AIR 1968 Calcutta 582 Brief facts: The Appellant applied for Registration of the mark “Simla” under Part A of the Register. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant stating that the word “Simla” is a geographical name and registrable only…