Delhi High Court
Is prior formal declaration of well-known status required for cross-class protection? Delhi High Court clarifies
It is a well-established principle of trademark law that well-known trademarks may enjoy broader protection beyond the goods and services for which they are registered, including against identical or deceptively similar marks used in respect of dissimilar goods or services. Section 11(2) of the…
Forest Essentials vs Baby Forest: Scope of Protection for Common Elements in Composite Marks
In Trademark law, determining the extent of protection afforded to composite marks, particularly those containing common or descriptive elements, remains a recurring challenge. This issue was recently considered by the Delhi High Court in an appeal decided by Justice Navin Chawla against an order…
Successive Interim Injunction Applications in Trademark Litigation: Insights from Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile
Interim injunctions are an important feature of trademark litigation, often determining whether the alleged infringing mark can continue to be used during the pendency of a suit. In Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile (I.A. 25986/2025 in CS(COMM) 519/2019), the Delhi High Court was not…
The ‘WHISTLER’ Case: Reinforcing the Territoriality Principle in Transborder Reputation Claims
As businesses increasingly expand across international markets, disputes concerning the protection of international trademarks in India have become more frequent. While Indian trademark law recognizes the doctrine of transborder reputation, protection is not granted solely on the basis of global…
Email Service by the Trademark Registry: Effective or a Loophole for missed deadlines?
In an earlier blog, we discussed the significance of the Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Ramya S. Moorthy vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, wherein the Applicant failed to receive the email service of the opposition notice from the Trademark Registry and, as a result, did not file the…
Use of a trademark as keyword in Google’s Ad Programme amounts to Use and Constitutes Infringement - Delhi High Court
The Appellants, Google India (P) Ltd., is a non-exclusive reseller of the Google Ads Programme in India, whereas the Respondents were DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., and Agarwal Packers and Movers (P) Ltd., who are leading packaging, moving and logistics service providers in the country. This case, Google…
Interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Indian Patents Act in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs
The legal case of Syngenta Limited vs. Controller Of Patents And Designs revolves around the interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Indian Patents Act. This section pertains to the power of the Controller to make orders regarding the division of patent applications, specifically focusing on…
A judicial lens on controversial IP realities in India
In a recent order passed on August 3, 2023, the Delhi HC in Ravi Manchanda v. Registrar of Trademarks rather scathingly pointed out a glaring error in an order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. In a case that was described as ‘sui-generis’, the Hon’ble Judge drew attention to a critical…
Trademark Infringement and Unfair Trade Practices: The Calvin Klein Case
In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Calvin Klein case, ( COTY GERMANY GMBH Vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ) exploring the Court's findings, and the implications of such actions on brand reputation and consumer trust. The plaintiff's trademark "Calvin Klein" was…
Restoring Patent Applications: Indian Courts' Stance on missing of deadlines to request examination or respond to examination reports
As patent attorneys, adhering to deadlines is pivotal for the success of a patent application. In India, two critical deadlines to bear in mind while prosecuting patent applications are those for filing a request for examination and responding to the first examination report. Presently, while a…
