Topic
The Bombay HC ordered rectification of LEFOXIN BIOX, holding it deceptively similar to Glaxo's 1956 LANOXIN mark under the stricter Cadila pharma test. Export sales constitute use in India under Section 56(1), but removal is deferred to December 31, 2026 for rebranding.
The Bombay High Court denied a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act because the defendants neither pleaded invalidity of the plaintiff's registered marks in their written statement nor filed rectification proceedings before the High Court, opting instead for the Registrar. The ruling clarifies that both procedural prerequisites are mandatory for a stay application.
The Delhi High Court held that ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR is deceptively similar to ACNESTAR, applying the essential features test despite get-up variations, and granted an interim injunction with a two-month stock recall.
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that ‘NOVIETS’ is deceptively similar to the well-known mark ‘NOVARTIS’, considering visual and phonetic resemblance in the pharmaceutical sector. The court reiterated that appellate interference with interim injunctions is warranted only where the order is perverse or ignores settled principles, dismissing the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma.
The Bombay High Court held that cosmetic changes to an infringing trademark-like altering font or colour-do not meet Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC standards for an interim injunction. Thus, only substantive cessation of the infringing use avoids contempt and civil imprisonment.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that a trademark’s earlier filing date under Section 18 overrides any later party’s prior-market-use defence under Section 34, confirming the registrar’s grant of ‘20-20’ to the first applicant. This clarifies that prior use does not defeat an earlier filing, guiding businesses on the primacy of registration dates in trademark disputes.
Bombay HC grants interim injunction against defendants using 'SAPAT' for tea, affirming a registered proprietor's exclusive right under Trade Marks Act, 1999. The ruling reinforces protection for well-established marks in Class 30 goods.
Bombay High Court rules that prior adoption and registration of a trademark in India override claims of trans-border reputation, even for globally recognized brands. The Court denied interim relief to both parties, permitting co-existence of identical marks due to acquiescence and failure to establish goodwill in India, setting a precedent for domestic trademark disputes involving foreign entities.
Bombay High Court rules that prior adoption and territorial use in India, along with acquiescence, override registered trademark rights at the interim stage. The judgment underscores that passing off actions require proof of goodwill, limiting challenges to trademark validity during interlocutory proceedings.
Bombay High Court holds that the Registrar of Trade Marks qualifies as a 'Court' under Section 24 CPC, enabling transfer of rectification proceedings to be consolidated with infringement suits. This ruling streamlines adjudication by preventing parallel litigation and reinforces the contextual interpretation of 'Court' under procedural laws, impacting trademark litigants and IP practitioners.
Kerala High Court rules that trademark registrations in different classes (goods vs services) do not immunize infringers from liability. The court emphasizes deceptive similarity, prior use, and passing off as key determinants, reinforcing that trademark protection extends beyond class boundaries where consumer confusion is likely.
Bombay High Court holds that the two-month deadline for filing an Evidence Affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 is directory, allowing extensions under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 even after expiry. This ruling clarifies that procedural timelines in rectification proceedings may be relaxed where justice demands, offering relief to parties facing delays.
Gujarat High Court holds that prolonged delays in trademark application disposal violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, directing authorities to adjudicate pending applications within three months. The ruling sets a precedent for judicial intervention in administrative lethargy affecting intellectual property rights.
Delhi High Court clarifies that minor visual changes in device marks do not constitute substantial alteration under Rule 37 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017.