#trademark law

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.

Bombay HC held that 'Queen' lacks secondary meaning, dismissing the passing off claim against 'Queen Full Power'. The decision reinforces that a common word cannot be monopolised unless it has acquired distinctiveness, affecting film title disputes.

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 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.

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 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.

Delhi High Court rules that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC if it discloses material facts establishing a passing off cause of action, even if trademark ownership is disputed. The judgment underscores that threshold rejection is unwarranted where allegations of deceptive packaging, continuous trademark use, and goodwill are pleaded.

Madras High Court reinforces that prior use and established goodwill of a name or mark are protectable under passing off law, even without formal trademark registration. The ruling underscores that likelihood of public confusion in the same field and locality is sufficient to grant injunctive relief, setting a precedent for unregistered mark holders.

Madras High Court upholds the validity of the registered trademark '777 Oil' against genericity claims, emphasizing prior use since 1992. The ruling also clarifies the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and reinforces the abandonment doctrine, setting a precedent for trademark disputes involving generic terms and evidentiary standards.