Atyati sought to restrain Cognizant from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its registered device mark. Atyati argued that Cognizant’s application for registration in Classes 35 and 42 evidenced its intention to free-ride on the goodwill and reputation of the ATYATI mark. The court found that Atyati had made a prima facie case…

This note discusses the final judgement post-trial passed by the Madras High Court in a suit filed by the well-known tyre manufacturer MRF. The Plaintiff, MRF Limited filed the suit against the Defendant, Powermax Rubber Factory and Ors, (Powermax) alleging infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, etc. MRF relying on its rights in the…

The case involved an agreement between the parties for the purchase of trademarks for a specified amount spread over a certain period of time. The High Court found that the defendants had failed to comply with the conditions for the transfer of the trademarks. The partial payment made by the defendants did not entitle them…

Madras High Court in a dispute between two entities in the pharmaceutical industry restrains use of a deceptively similar mark. The Plaintiff, Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited (Sun Pharma) filed the suit against the Defendant, Kivi Labs Ltd (Kivi Labs) alleging trademark infringement, passing off, damages, etc,. Sun Pharma relying on its rights in the registered mark…

Use of the mark/name ‘Jindal’ is the bone of contention between the parties before the Delhi High Court. The Plaintiff, Jindal Industries Private Limited (JIPL), relying on its rights in the registered trademark JINDAL filed the suit against the Defendants, Suncity Sheets Private Limited (Suncity) and Ors, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, etc. The injunction…

This is an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the order of the Commercial Court, Indore. The gist of the appeal is the interpretation of the agreement entered into between the parties in the year 2015 in relation to transfer of various trademarks upon payment of the agreed consideration. Facts in a nutshell…

The note discusses the cancellation petition filed by GSK Consumer Healthcare SA (GSK) against the Respondent Celebrity Biopharma’s (Celebrity) registration for the mark OTRINIR. GSK sought cancellation based on their prior adoption and use of the mark OTRIVIN. While deciding the case, the Delhi High Court has discussed in detail the Anti-dissection and common-to-trade rule…

This note briefly sums up the judgement passed by the Madras High Court in a suit between two entities dealing in ‘bitumen emulsion.’ The Plaintiff, Hindustan Colas Private Limited (Hindustan) filed the suit against the Defendant, Muthoos Enterprises (Muthoos), alleging copyright infringement, passing off, and consequential reliefs. Hindustan’s case: They adopted the mark ‘Hincol’ along…

Premier SPG opposed the registration of PREMIER LEAGUE in Class 25 based on its PREMIER marks and PREMIER-formative marks in the same class The court found that there was no deceptive similarity between the marks and that the only common element was theword ‘Premier’ Premier SPG clearly could not have a monopoly over the word…

This is an order passed by the Division Bench (Two Judge bench) of the Madras High Court in an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. The Plaintiff, TVS Electronics Limited, filed the suit against the Defendant, Jitender Kumar, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, etc., and to restrain the latter from using the mark…