- AI
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
Dabur vs. Dhruv Rathee
Introduction Dabur claimed that Dhruv Rathee’s video unfairly compared carbonated drinks with ready-to-serve (RTS) fruit beverages, causing a generic disparagement of all packaged drinking fruit juices. Dabur also alleged that the video specifically targeted its Real fruit juices by using partially blurred Real logos and promotional advertising clips. The court recognized that while dissemination of … Continue reading Dabur vs. Dhruv Rathee
Read more »RPG Enterprises Limited v Riju Ghoshal Trading As RPG
Introduction The plaintiff company is an Indian industrial group with over twenty years of business. The adoption of its trademark RPG originates from the company’s founder and well-known industrialist Mr. Rama Prasad Goenka. Over the years, RPG and the companies in its group have adopted a number of stylized/descriptive trademarks, including the mark RPG, to … Continue reading RPG Enterprises Limited v Riju Ghoshal Trading As RPG
Read more »Winzo vs. Google
Introduction Industries are implementing measures to sell their own products and improve client appeal as a result of rising worldwide competition. They occasionally have a tendency to promote their goods during this process at the risk of dishonouring or delegitimizing the product of their competitor. As a result, trademark law claims of “disparagement” are frequently … Continue reading Winzo vs. Google
Read more »Toyota vs. Jidosha Kabushiki
Introduction Toyota claimed to have launched its product- a minivan, under the name Alphard in 2002, stating that they have been using it in China, Russia, Indonesia, Philippines and Japan. In India, Toyota has filed an application to register the mark on a “proposed to be used” basis, under class 12 (Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion … Continue reading Toyota vs. Jidosha Kabushiki
Read more »Sun Pharma vs. Hetero Healthcare
Introduction Under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sun Pharma has registered the mark “LETROZ,” which refers to a medication used to treat advanced breast cancer. “LETROZOLE” is one of its active ingredients. Sun Pharma sued Hetero Healthcare Ltd. for using the mark “LETERO” on the basis of trademark infringement and passing off. … Continue reading Sun Pharma vs. Hetero Healthcare
Read more »Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.
Introduction The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for an injunction to stop the defendants and respondents from using the trademark “MILAAP” illegally. The petitioners/plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert that they registered a trademark application for the registration of their mark after incorporating their office in Singapore and then in India. According to the plaint, the petitioners … Continue reading Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.
Read more »Case Analysis: Pandrol Limited & Anr. v. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt.
Introduction The Plaintiff no.1 is the industry leader in rail fastenings and track elasticity solutions headquartered in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff no.2 is a joint venture between the plaintiff no.1 and Rahee Industries Ltd. The defendant no.1 is a company in the business of dealing in railway track engineering. Defendants no.2 to 5 are … Continue reading Case Analysis: Pandrol Limited & Anr. v. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt.
Read more »Relief for Body Cupid Private Limited – Karnataka High Court restrains the sale of products under the marks which are identical and similar to Wow Skin Science
Body Cupid Private Limited, a leading manufacturer of premium-quality personal care and wellness products, owns the brands WOW SKIN SCIENCE, WOW LIFE SCIENCE and BODY CUPID. The products under the brand, are being sold under the brand since the year 2014. Recently, Body Cupid became aware that one Mr. Gaurav Bhadani, through Mahadev Enterprises based … Continue reading Relief for Body Cupid Private Limited – Karnataka High Court restrains the sale of products under the marks which are identical and similar to Wow Skin Science
Read more »Delhi Hc’s Subway Judgement: When Is A Trademark Not Seen ‘As Whole’?- Part I
Introduction Recently a single bench of the Delhi HC gave an order in Subway IP LLC v. Infinity Foods & Ors.[1] (‘Subway’) using the rule of Anti-Dissection. In this case, although the single bench acknowledged the rule of Anti-Dissection but took a calculated detour to appreciate a dominant element of the two competing marks to … Continue reading Delhi Hc’s Subway Judgement: When Is A Trademark Not Seen ‘As Whole’?- Part I
Read more »Case analysis: ISKCON v. ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd.
Introduction According to Investopedia a trademark is any name, sign, design, logo, or symbol that serves to distinguish the goods of one business from those of another[i]. However, Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines ‘trademark’ as a mark which is capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the goods or … Continue reading Case analysis: ISKCON v. ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd.
Read more »