Category: IPR Case Laws

The Delhi High Court directed Crocs Inc. to pay ₹24.63 lakh as litigation costs to Bata India after the disposal of the design infringement suit.

The Delhi High Court, in Industria De Diseño Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., set aside the registration of the trademark ZORA after holding it deceptively similar to the earlier trademark ZARA. This judgment is an important precedent on deceptive similarity, the protection of reputed trademarks, and the duty of the Registrar while deciding trademark opposition proceedings.

The KENT vs KENT trademark dispute between Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. highlights the importance of prior use, trademark reputation and interim injunctions. The case examines whether a reputed trademark owner can enter a product market where another party claims earlier use of the identical mark for fans, while highlighting key principles of trademark law, prior user rights, goodwill, passing off and product expansion.

The Madras High Court in Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Trademarks & Ors. examined whether the trademarks “GANESH” and “GANESHA” could coexist for similar Class 30 goods. In its judgment dated 15 April 2026, the Court upheld the registration of the GANESHA mark, considering prior registration, evidence of use, geographical circumstances and Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

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”.

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