Blog

Delhi High Court Division Bench examines the trademark dispute between BEVATAS and BEVETEX, addressing deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, publici juris elements and pharmaceutical trademark principles. The Court allowed Intas Pharmaceuticals’ appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment

Trademark objection in India commonly arises under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 9 deals with absolute grounds such as lack of distinctiveness or descriptiveness, while Section 11 concerns conflicts with earlier trademarks and likelihood of confusion

Delhi Commercial Court has ruled in favour of Nike Innovate C.V. in a trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement suit against Fabulous Fashion & Ors. The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded ₹3.10 lakh in damages, along with costs and delivery up of infringing goods for destruction.

The Supreme Court in Shabu K.N. Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited clarified that a defendant may question the plaintiff about the period of trademark use and supporting documents during cross-examination, even when the Written Statement is not on record.

Learn the complete process of Trade Mark Opposition in India, including TM-O Notice of Opposition, Counter Statement, Evidence under Rules 45, 46 & 47, Hearing, Final Order, and applicable timelines

Jodi365 vs Jodii is a significant Indian trademark dispute involving prior use, composite marks, phonetic similarity, passing off, publici juris and consumer confusion. Explore the complete date-wise litigation timeline from 2009 to the Madras High Court judgment of 11 August 2026 and subsequent Supreme Court proceedings.

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trademark Registry's refusal of the AYU LIFESCIENCE trademark application and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The case highlights the importance of verifying the legal status of cited marks and comparing composite trademarks as a whole.

Delhi High Court cancels DAPLOGIN trademark registration after finding it deceptively similar to DAPLO. The Court considered the similarity of marks, common API Dapagliflozin and pharmaceutical use

Delhi High Court, in Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. Varun Beverages Ltd. & Anr., considered the similarity between the marks SMOODH and SMOOTH and granted an ad-interim injunction against the use of SMOOTH. The Court prima facie considered the marks structurally and phonetically similar and also noted the allegation of “smart copying”.

Did you know the modern three-point seat belt was patented by Volvo engineer Nils Bohlin? Discover why the patent was made openly available, how patent territoriality works, and why the same old invention cannot simply be patented today in India.