The Delhi High Court has held that, where on a visual comparison the rival medicinal marks are strikingly similar in their essential features, suffix, overall get up and packaging, and where the goods, trade channels and consumer base are common, the likelihood of confusion and deception is sufficient to justify grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the prior user and registered proprietor. The Court applied the settled interim injunction tests by holding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was tilted in their favour, and that irreparable injury would ensue in the absence of restraint orders.
Applying that position, the Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or otherwise dealing in goods bearing the impugned mark “Liv-82 DS” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, and also restrained use of packaging formats resulting in passing off of the defendants’ goods as those of the plaintiffs. The Court additionally directed both defendants to disclose, by affidavit, the stock, manufacture and earnings relating to the impugned goods.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upon visual examination of the plaintiffs’ marks “Liv.52” and “Liv.52 DS” and the defendants’ mark “Liv-82 DS”, observed that the similarities were striking. It noted that the letters “Liv” and “LIV” were identical except for capitalization, which hardly mattered when considered as a whole, and that the use of the numerical “82” was confusing when compared with “52” of the plaintiffs’ mark. The Bench further observed that from a distance and at the retailer’s counter, the distinction may not be clear and would cause confusion.
The Delhi High Court has that in trademark disputes involving composite device marks, the test of deceptive similarity must be applied holistically and not by dissecting the marks to isolate a common element. Even if a shared element is alleged to be dominant, the decisive inquiry remains whether the marks, viewed in their entirety, create a likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection.
The Court further held that where the rival marks, taken as a whole, are visually, phonetically, conceptually and structurally distinct, and where additional elements such as “Shatam” and “By Baidyanath” clearly distinguish source, no prima facie case of infringement arises. The Court also held that for passing off, the plaintiff must establish the classical trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage, and the enquiry must be based on the overall representation and trade dress. Where there is no deceptive similarity and no misrepresentation, passing off cannot be sustained, and an interlocutory injunction ought not to be granted.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla first noted that an appeal against an interlocutory order of the Commercial Court is an appeal on principle, and interference is warranted only where the order is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, ignores settled principles governing injunctions, or where the view taken was not reasonably possible on the material before the Court.
Trade Marks Act Provides No Independent Immunity to ‘House Marks’; Bombay High Court Awards ?10 Lakh Costs to Sun Pharma
The Bombay High Court has held that where a registered trade mark is subsumed in the defendant’s trade name or house mark, with only a minor prefix added, and the defendant uses that mark in relation to the same class of goods, infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act is made out, including under Section 29(5), because use of a registered trade mark as part of a trade name is sufficient to attract infringement. The Trade Marks Act does not create a separate immunity for “house marks”, and the defendant cannot avoid liability by characterizing the impugned mark as merely a trading style.
The Court clarified that in pharmaceutical matters, the test of deceptive similarity must be applied strictly, and the addition or deletion of a few letters does not avoid infringement where the essential registered mark remains embedded in the impugned mark and is likely to confuse a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed that once the plaintiff’s registrations were undisputed, the plaintiff was entitled to the statutory rights under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including exclusive use in relation to the registered goods. The Bench further observed that the Trade Marks Act does not define “house mark” separately and makes no distinction between a trade mark and a house mark where the mark is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one person from another.
Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Rosenberger Group; Awards ?152.32 Crore Damages
The Delhi High Court has asserted that the prior art documents relied upon for anticipation must be read individually and not mosaiced; that to constitute anticipation, the prior art must disclose subject matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in infringement of the patent; and that a generic prior disclosure of an isolated feature does not anticipate a specific and claimed combination of features. The Court held that prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention cannot serve as the foundation for anticipation.
On inventive step, the Court stated that when multiple prior art documents are cited for lack of inventive step, there must be a common thread linking them and motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine them; that the Dartboard approach of hurling unrelated prior arts at a patent, each simply because they contain isolated words similar to those in the claims, constitutes impermissible hindsight bias and cannot satisfy the test of obviousness.
As far as lack ofnovelty under Section 64(1)(e) of the Patent Act is concerned, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted the settled legal principle that for determining novelty, i.e., prior art documents cannot be ‘mosaiced’ or read in combination with each other, each document must be considered individually. A generic disclosure does not, by itself, defeat the novelty of a specific and limited disclosure.
The Single Judge found that Gabriel deals with an antenna arrangement providing asymmetric horizontal polar diagrams through a phase shifter arrangement in conjunction with a downstream hybrid circuit. The asymmetry in Gabriel operates about a vertical plane perpendicular to the reflector face, whereas in IN’893, asymmetry is specifically introduced about the line of reference passing through the peak gain point of the main beam in the horizontal plane. The Bench opined that these are not different degrees of the same concept, rather, they are conceptually distinct forms of asymmetry operating on entirely different planes of reference.
The Delhi High Court has held that goods which infringe a registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can neither be exported nor imported into India. In case such goods are “liquor”, they fall within the ambit of “counterfeit liquor” under Section 2(16) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, as they violate rights conferred under the Trade Marks Act.
Consequently, the Court cannot permit a defendant to sell seized infringing liquor goods and place them in the market, as any such direction would be violative of the harmonious reading of the proscription in Section 29(6)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 2(16) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Thus, the High Court refused to permit the sale of seized whiskey stocks bearing the trademark “OLD FORESTER”, holding that goods found in violation of trademark rights fall within the definition of “counterfeit liquor” under excise law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that on a plain reading of Section 29(2)(c), 29(3), and 29(6)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the proscription against export or import of goods into India, which are found to be infringing registered trademarks, is clearly set out. The Bench noted that this provision is engrafted to avoid the mischief where a clever importer may import goods under a trademark registered in India, and while continuing to be in violation thereof, would be entitled to sell the same and earn profits thereon.
The Calcutta High Court has found that Exide Industries (respondent) has been marketing and selling automotive batteries packaging the same in red colour dress, where the body of the battery as well as the packaging contains the red colour dress, and it has been marketing and selling automotive batteries in red colour dress prior to the appellant doing so is established. Accordingly, the Court upheld the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge in favour of Exide Industries.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the respondent had been using the colour red as a distinctive feature of its product and established prior user of the colour red in its trade dress much prior to the appellant. It noted that the parties had acknowledged that colour was an important source identifier, and the appellant had consciously worked to build a particular colour association with green to distinguish itself from the respondent’s red. By running a campaign claiming green was better than red, the appellant had excluded itself from the colour red as a source identifier, and the colour red stood associated exclusively with the respondent.
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the www.timesofindiaa.news (Defendants), and restrained the Defendant no. 1, its directors, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, and any person claiming right through/for them, from using the mark “TIMES OF INDIA” or taglines or any other identical/similar trademark/domain name/logo, either as a trademark/trade name/logo or as part of domain name, social media posts, creatives, in electronic or physical media or in any manner whatsoever.
A single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the trademark “The Times of India” has been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks registry in the year 2024. It noted that the relief granted over the registered trademarks ‘TOI’, ‘Times of India’ and the device mark, the popularity indicated by the steady growth of readership, the sales and promotion figures provided by the Plaintiff over the years, and the digital reach achieved by its App, prima facie, evidence a strong case in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that in a trade mark dispute between family members over a shared ancestral mark, where the core issue of exclusive ownership versus shared goodwill remains to be finally adjudicated through trial and cross-examination of untested documents, an interim injunction cannot be granted as it would unduly disrupt legitimate family business activities and the balance of convenience does not favour such disruptive relief.
Further, the Court held that no monopoly can be claimed over a common or religious expression (such as a deity’s name) forming part of a composite mark unless it has acquired a secondary distinctiveness, and conflicting marks must be compared as a whole applying the anti-dissection rule without dissecting them into component parts.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the correct test for trade mark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, applying the ‘anti-dissection rule’. Visually, phonetically, and structurally, the Impugned Marks ‘SV RAJ’ and ‘RAJNUT’ differ in their essential features, lettering, and overall presentation from the Subject Mark, and do not create an overall resemblance likely to cause confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer exercising imperfect recollection.
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff (CMYK Printech Ltd), and restrained the defendant (MS Ideal Multi Media Network), its directors, officers, agents, servants, representatives, and all others acting on its behalf, from reproducing, copying, downloading, extracting, publishing, printing, distributing, or in any manner whatsoever exploiting the plaintiff’s copyrighted newspaper “The Pioneer”, including its content, articles, layout, format, compilation, photographs, and design.
The High Court also restrained the defendants from representing themselves as a franchisee, licensee, or authorized user of the mark ‘The Pioneer’, in any manner whatsoever. They are also restrained from collecting revenue, soliciting advertisements, or entering into any commercial transactions using the mark “The Pioneer”.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that upon comparing the two publications, that the publication of the newspaper is a coordinated and layered process involving editing, designing, visual creation, and compilation. It noted that the plaintiff and its editorial board exercise intellect in the creation, curation, and presentation of contents, and that the preparation of original head notes, summaries, selection of fonts, column widths, spacing, and headline style are unique and copyrightable.
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Ashraful Islam (Defendant), its partners, affiliates, franchisees, officers, distributors, servants, agents, assigns, representatives, and anyone acting on their behalf directly or indirectly, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, dealing in any manner with products/services using the impugned marks HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE as also the domain name https://himalayanutrawellness.com and/or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ registered HIMALAYA trademarks/logos including all the associated and formative marks/logos, amounting to infringement of trademarks.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark HIMALAYA and its formative marks. Whereas, the Defendant has adopted and is using the impugned mark HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE, which are deceptively similar and since the rival goods are identical and trade channels and consumer base are common, confusion among members of public and potential customers is highly likely.
The Delhi High Court has held that the Bharati Bhawan Publishers (plaintiff) has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour, as the infringing products clearly appear to be counterfeit and cheap imitations. The Bench determined that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case the defendants are not injuncted.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela visually checked and compared the impugned products with those of the plaintiff and noted deceptive visual similarity to the extent that the distinction was not discernible to the Court. However, upon inspection, the Bench observed that the infringing products were of substandard and poor quality, utilizing substandard paper for printing the copyrighted material and poor-quality adhesive, which caused the sheets of paper to separate at certain places.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that two identical/deceptively similar marks that too in the same Class and in relation to similar/identical goods cannot continue to remain on the Register of Trade Marks. Where the trade circles, the distribution network and the retail outlets too are common and the consumers of the products manufactured by both parties also are common, two rival marks that are phonetically, visually and structurally nearly identical and deceptively similar cannot continue to remain on the Register of Trade Marks.
Consequently, the impugned trademark “GOLDI” of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 cannot continue to remain on the Register of Trade Marks, and is directed to be cancelled and removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Accordingly, the Court ordered the cancellation and removal of the trademark “GOLDI” (label) from the Register of Trade Marks in petitions filed by Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the petitioner applied for the registration of its trademark “GOLDIEE” (label) on 01.10.1980 and for the label mark “GOLDIEE” (in Hindi and English) on 27.03.1996 in Classes 29 and 30. In contrast, respondent no. 1 applied for a device mark “GOLDI” (label) on 04.08.2000 with a user detail of 01.01.2000 in Class 29 in relation to manufacture of mustard oil (edible oil), and on 15.09.2010 for the device mark “GOLDI” (logo in Hindi) with the user detail of 01.01.2000 in Class 31 in relation to manufacture of foodstuffs (oil cake) for animals.
The Bombay High Court has allowed an appeal filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., setting aside a Single Judge’s order that had refused interim relief in a trademark dispute involving the marks “RACIRAFT” and “ESIRAFT.” The appellant, a leading pharmaceutical company, claimed infringement and passing off of its registered trademark “RACIRAFT,” used for a drug treating heartburn and indigestion. It alleged that the respondent’s mark “ESIRAFT,” used for identical pharmaceutical products, was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.
While an ad-interim injunction was initially granted, the Single Judge later vacated it, holding that no prima facie deceptive similarity existed. This finding was challenged before the Division Bench. Reversing the Single Judge, the Division Bench held that the correct test for deceptive similarity in pharmaceutical products particularly the stricter standard laid down in Cadila Health Care had not been properly applied.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that where any party from whom a written statement is required fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the averments in the plaint and the evidence are deemed to have been admitted requiring no further corroboration on any material aspect in terms of Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The Court ruled that the unauthorized use of a copyrighted software program, detected and proved through an inbuilt security mechanism (‘Phone Home’ technology) that logs ‘Infringement Hits’ by cross-checking license keys and capturing MAC addresses, constitutes copyright infringement when the defendant fails to procure genuine licenses and maintains silence to legal notices. In such cases of infringement, the quantum of loss and damages can be reckoned on the basis of the loss that occurred to the plaintiff, represented by the total market costs or genuine purchase cost of the software programs for the exact number of computer systems on which the pirated/unauthorized software was used, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted how the prosecution witness deposed the manner in which the inbuilt security mechanism developed and integrated into the SOLIDWORKS software program ascertains the infringement by the defendants and the number of computers/other systems of access on account of ‘phone Home’ software. The technology captures and records specific information about the usage of the software programme by the host and the computer on which it is installed and used, which is transmitted to plaintiff’s servers which automatically cross-check the details of the software and the computer system on which it is installed. The transmission of the specific information logs the said information as an incident report of an infringement known as an ‘Infringement Hit’, which refers to the number of times the pirated/unauthorized software is used by an individual.
In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court by Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Impressario) seeking rectification of the Mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ registered in favour of Vardhaman Choksi, a restaurateur from Mumbai, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia allowed the appeal, and directed the removal of the impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
On 04-12-2017, Impressario filed a suit before this Court seeking a permanent injunction against the use of the Mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’, and was granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Vardhaman Choksi from opening a restraint with the said mark and ‘SOCIAL’. Thereafter, Vardhaman Choksi filed rectification petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), New Delhi, seeking rectification of Impressario’s marks from the Register of Trade Marks.
This Court returned Impressario’s plaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and granted it liberty to file the same before the Bombay High Court. In the suit filed thereafter, Vardhaman Choksi gave an undertaking before the Bombay High Court that he would give 3 weeks’ prior notice if he intends to open a restraint under the mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ or ‘SOCIAL’, but no such undertaking was given to Impressario. After the abolition of IPAB, the petitions were transferred to this Court.
Licensee Cannot Invoke Section 48(2) to Claim Prior Use; Delhi HC Bars Use of ‘AL KAMDHENU GOLD’
The Delhi High Court has clarified that where the contractual documents between the parties expressly define their relationship as one of licensor and licensee, provide that all right, title, interest and goodwill in the mark vest in the licensor, permit the licensee to use even the impugned mark only in a controlled and conditional manner, and stipulate that the licensee would become “exclusive and absolute owner” only upon final registration, the arrangement does not operate as a present assignment of the impugned mark but only as a licence user arrangement contemplating a future and contingent vesting of ownership upon registration.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia examined AIL’s argument based on alleged joint family management and collaborative development of the mark. Referring to the 1997 Agreement, the 2002 Agreement and the 2021 Agreement, the Bench noted that each expressly stated that the parties were unrelated, separate and distinct legal entities and that their relationship was purely commercial and contractual. On that basis, the Bench held that all rights pertaining to trademarks, trade names and associated goodwill resided with the corporate entities rather than individual directors, and that claims founded on purported family arrangements or collaborative development of the “KAMDHENU” mark did not affect the legal rights of the parties.
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Toprankers Edtech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliate entities, restraining Law Prep Tutorial and others from publishing or circulating defamatory and disparaging content against them, including content relating to the CLAT 2026 AIR 1 topper.
The Court further observed that the dispute reflected an “acrimonious professional rivalry” between competing coaching institutes, but emphasised that such rivalry cannot justify statements or campaigns that tarnish a competitor’s reputation. It also took note of the misuse of the minor student’s identity, observing that she had clearly dissociated herself from the defendants and should not have been dragged into the controversy.
Importantly, the Court clarified that a single academic achievement does not automatically elevate an individual to claim enforceable “personality rights”, cautioning against an over-expansive interpretation of such rights.
Emphasising that as a Constitutional Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, appropriate orders were warranted to ensure that its directions were not taken in a perfunctory or dismissive manner, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on Parle Agro (defendant), payable to “BHARAT KE VEER” within three weeks from the date of the order, and directed the deponent of the affidavits dated January 22, 2026 and February 16, 2026 to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks on account of non-compliance with sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 139 of the order dated September 18, 2023.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressly held that the non-submission of the certificate of sales revenue every two months was not, in its opinion, wilful; however, it was a clear, unambiguous and serious violation of the Court’s order. The Court also noted that neither any explanation nor any apology for such non-compliance was tendered or discernible from the contents of the two affidavits.
The Bombay High Court has considered the fact that an unsuspecting investor can be drawn into investing substantial amounts based on the contents of the infringing accounts purportedly giving guidance pertaining to the stock market and using the National Stock Exchange of India (Plaintiff’s) registered trade mark, the use of such infringing activity is liable to be restrained in larger public interest.
The Court emphasised that such a restraint cannot be construed as laying any fetter on the right of an individual to express his opinion or view or project or predict the stock market or give any financial advice however, the same cannot be purportedly under the aegis of the Plaintiff which is the likely consequence of the use of the registered trade mark.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the present matter was materially similar to the earlier proceedings and that the previous modified regime could appropriately be applied here as well. It noted that Rule 3(1) of the Information Technology Rules requires due diligence by intermediaries and that the earlier order had already aligned the takedown timeline to 36 hours in conformity with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Bombay High Court has clarified that in an action for infringement of a registered design, the comparison must be between the registered design itself and the impugned article, and not between the impugned article and subsequent product variants of the plaintiff. The test is whether, judged solely by the eye and viewing the designs as a whole, the impugned article incorporates the essential parts or the basis of the claim for novelty in the registered design.
Thus, the Court held that where the alleged similarities are only in the basic functional appearance of the article and the visible differences are clear, no prima facie case of piracy or infringement is made out. Further, in a passing off claim arising alongside a design infringement dispute, mere similarity is insufficient; and the plaintiff must establish goodwill and distinctiveness in the particular get-up and show “something more” than mere resemblance.
Judge Bench of Justice Gauri Godse found, prima facie, that the product-versus-product comparison made by the plaintiff in the plaint was not confined to the plaintiff’s registered design, but compared the defendant’s fan with other later models launched by the plaintiff. The Bench observed that the plaintiff had obtained design registration for one model but sought to demonstrate similarity by using different models in the comparative material.
The Delhi High Court has asserted that since Schloss HMA Private Limited (plaintiff) is the registered proprietor of a trademark and its stylized/formative variants, and the Leela Entertainment Private Limited (defendant) uses identical or deceptively similar marks for identical hospitality services, with a common consumer base and evidence of actual confusion, such use prima facie constitutes infringement and passing off. Hence, in such circumstances, where dishonest adoption and likely irreparable injury to goodwill are shown, the court is justified in granting ex parte ad interim injunction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark “THE LEELA” and its formative and stylized versions and, by virtue of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, enjoys the statutory right to exclusive use and to restrain infringement by third parties. The Bench also observed that the Defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks for identical services, with a common consumer base, giving rise to likelihood of confusion; and the Plaintiff had also pointed out instances of actual confusion. On this basis, the Bench prima facie held that the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
The Delhi High Court has held that where Marc Enterprises (respondent) is the prior user and prior registered proprietor of an inherently distinctive mark, and Flipkart India (appellant) subsequently adopts a mark that is phonetically, structurally and visually similar for allied and cognate goods sold through identical trade channels, a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion is made out.
In such circumstances, the use of a house mark alongside the impugned mark does not by itself obviate infringement or passing off, and the appellate court will not interfere with an order granting interim injunction unless the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion is shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous, added the Court while dismissing the appeal. The Court also vacated the stay and granted the appellant time till May 15, 2026 to comply with the interim injunction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that in an appeal against an interim injunction, the appellate court is confined to examining whether the discretion exercised by the Trial Court is perverse or legally indefensible, and cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Interference is permissible only where the decision is one that no reasonable person, applying the relevant facts and law, could have reached.
The Delhi High Court has held that while rejecting a patent application for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, the Controller must render a reasoned order by discussing the invention disclosed in the prior art, the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and the manner in which the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
A bare conclusion, unsupported by such analysis and consisting merely of reproduction of prior art extracts, violates the requirement of reasoned adjudication by a quasi-judicial authority and cannot be sustained in law, added the Court, while quashing the impugned order, and remitted the matter of Patent Application of Nippon Steel for de novo consideration by another Assistant Controller/Controller, within four months.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the impugned order, under the heading “SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS”, extensively extracted portions from prior art documents D1, D2 and D3, but the analysis was bereft of application of mind and did not disclose reasons sufficient to sustain the conclusion reached by the Controller.
While granting a decree of permanent injunction to Laboratoire Garnier (plaintiff), the Saket Bench of the Delhi District Court has held that where the plaintiff establishes registration of its trademark and the defendant is found using an identical mark on identical goods, the Court may presume likelihood of confusion under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and such use constitutes infringement. Where the defendant also adopts identical typography, trade dress and counterfeit goods to ride upon the plaintiff’s reputation, the same equally amounts to passing off.
In cases of blatant counterfeiting supported by seizure of infringing goods and an unchallenged Local Commissioner’s report, the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction and delivery up of seized counterfeit products for destruction, added the Court.
The District Judge Arul Varma observed that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act expands the ordinary rule under Section 20 CPC and permits institution of the suit where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. Since the invoice relied upon by the plaintiff showed business activity in South Delhi through its authorised distributor, the Court held that the Saket Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The Saket Bench of the District Court has held that in a trademark infringement and passing off action, mere recovery of goods bearing the disputed marks from a defendant’s premises is not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief where the plaintiff fails to prove, through competent evidence, that the recovered goods are counterfeit or infringing, especially when there is no comparison with original products and no technical expert evidence identifying distinguishing infringing features.
The District Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma observed that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case even on preponderance of probabilities. It observed that although PW1 stated in cross-examination that the plaintiffs were private limited companies, no such pleading or incorporation proof had been placed on record. The Court further found that prosecution witness failed to establish the source of his knowledge of the facts, as he was not associated with the plaintiffs’ companies and there was nothing to show he had derived knowledge from their official records.
The Delhi High Court has asserted that where the rival marks are prima facie identical or deceptively similar in visual and textual presentation, and are used for the same or allied services catering to common consumers, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff shows prior rights, registration, and goodwill, then it deserves grant of ex parte ad interim injunction on the grounds of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The Court accordingly restrained the defendant from using HOD Diagnostics / Home of Diagnostics or any identical or deceptively similar mark and directed immediate removal of listings from websites and social media platforms.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed on a bare comparison of the rival marks, that the deceptive similarities were “more than apparent.” It noted that the defendant’s mark HOD was identical to the plaintiffs’ registered mark H.O.D, the only difference being the absence of dots, and that the expression Home of Diagnostics was deceptively similar to House of Diagnostics. The Bench further observed that the style, manner of writing, and presentation were likely to confuse or deceive consumers.
The Madras High Court has held that summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 CPC in a commercial dispute is justified where there is no compelling reason to record oral evidence and the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim. In the present case, since the plaintiff’s mark related to milk and dairy products under Class 29, while the defendants were registered proprietors of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits under Class 30, and Sections 12 and 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act contemplate coexistence of similar marks in such circumstances, the suit for infringement and passing off did not warrant a full trial.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the plaintiff’s mark “AROKYA” was associated with milk and milk products, whereas the defendants used “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits, and the goods fell in different classes, namely Class 29 and Class 30 respectively. The Bench also recorded that the defendants’ mark carried the prefix “Patanjali” and that the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’ registration was already pending before the Trade Marks Registry.