Category: IPR Case Laws

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

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.

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”.

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.

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 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.