Topic
Trademark infringement in Indian law occurs when a mark is used without authorization in a way that causes confusion or deception among consumers regarding the source of goods or services.
Delhi HC holds that a plaintiff cannot claim 'subsequent discovery' of records always in its custody by deferring search, defeating 'reasonable cause' under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC. This ruling impacts trademark suits, where filing similar documents with the plaint and multiple tranches of disclosure can be deemed unreasonable.
The Delhi High Court ruled that trademark infringement claims against an ex-licensee and its affiliates are arbitrable under the licence agreement as subordinate rights in personam, not rights in rem. Non-signatory affiliates are bound as persons claiming through the signatory, extending the arbitration clause to related entities.
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 quashed the ex-parte interim injunction against Nugenesys after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a cease-and-desist notice, breaching the duty of candour in the Statement of Truth. The decision warns trademark litigants that material suppression will invalidate injunctive relief under the Commercial Courts Act.
A corporate defendant successfully invoked the Section 35 bona-fide use defence to retain a family name in its trademark, prompting the Bombay High Court to modify the earlier interim injunction. The ruling clarifies that companies may lawfully use surnames when use is genuine, affecting future trademark litigants.
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 overturned the lower court’s decree, granting a permanent injunction against Saurashtra Aaj Tak and confirming that a party with prior use of a name can pursue a passing-off action without a registered trademark. This protects established brands from later entrants using deceptively similar titles.
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.
The Karnataka High Court clarified that defendants cannot shift the burden of proof by merely alleging industry-wide reuse of packaging; the plaintiff must still establish likelihood of confusion and prior rights. This reinforces that procedural defenses like trade practice are not admissions and do not alter the foundational burden in trademark suits, impacting brand owners and manufacturers relying on recycled packaging.
The Bombay High Court held that mere website accessibility and overseas sales to Indian customers do not establish transborder reputation for trademark passing off claims, reinforcing that local market recognition is essential. However, interim relief was granted on copyright infringement grounds due to unauthorized use of distinctive logos, clarifying that IP rights can be enforced separately even when reputation claims fail.
The Bombay High Court ruled that 'ABSUN PHARMA' is deceptively similar to 'SUN PHARMA', constituting trademark infringement and passing off under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act and common law. Exporting goods to Africa does not exempt the defendant from liability in India, reinforcing that consumer confusion in the domestic market is the decisive factor.
The Madras High Court ruled that trademark passing off claims succeed when cumulative evidence demonstrates a real likelihood of consumer confusion, even in the absence of physical counterfeit products. This clarifies that brand protection hinges on market perception, not just imitation, empowering rights holders to act against deceptive trade practices without waiting for forged goods to surface.
Madras HC rules that a composite suit for trademark infringement and passing off remains valid even if leave under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act is not obtained, provided the plaint discloses a cause of action within jurisdiction. The court clarifies that online sales and branch office presence suffice to establish territorial jurisdiction, offering relief to plaintiffs in multi-cause trademark disputes.
Bombay HC reinstates an interim injunction against 'ESIRAFT', ruling that phonetic similarity with 'RACIRAFT' creates consumer confusion in pharmaceuticals, even with a shared generic suffix. The court strictly applied the Cadila Health Care test, emphasizing heightened scrutiny for drug-related trademarks to prevent public health risks.