Category: Trademark Litigation

Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation Vs Kishor D Jain & Anr – Trademark Counterfeiting

Background The Bombay High Court has passed an order in Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation Vs Kishor D Jain & Anr[1] imposing costs of INR 5 Crore to be paid by the defendants who were caught counterfeiting the Plaintiff’s mark and goods. In a global economy, counterfeiting activity is a challenge that impacts business … Continue reading Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation Vs Kishor D Jain & Anr – Trademark Counterfeiting

Read more »

Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K) along with its IP Asset Management Practice, IIPRD, are happy to announce that they are expanding to Punjab and opening up their new branch Office in Jalandhar,  w.e.f *insert date*, in wake of its growing Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Litigation Practice, and with an intent to … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Read more »

Criminal & Civil Prosecution for Copyright/Trademark Violation

If any brand’s product is genuine & original, then it enjoys a substantial amount of recognition in the eyes of its potential customer, therefore it is necessary to protect the commercial value of any product offered by such brands and the said protection is provided through Intellectual Property Rights associated with the product i.e. Trademark, … Continue reading Criminal & Civil Prosecution for Copyright/Trademark Violation

Read more »

SEVEN TOWNS V. KIDDLAND: DELHI HIGH COURT ON TRADE DRESS PROTECTION

The concept of trade dress, although closely associated with trademarks is not explicitly recognized in Indian legislations unlike its U.S.A. counterpart. In Indian context, upon looking closely at the definitions of “mark” and “package” under S. 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 we see that the trade dresses are also protected. To define it, … Continue reading SEVEN TOWNS V. KIDDLAND: DELHI HIGH COURT ON TRADE DRESS PROTECTION

Read more »

Denial of Injunction on the grounds of Acquiescence and Delay by Plaintiffs: SRF Foundation v. Ram Education Society

Devina Choubal, an intern at Khurana & Khurana looks into grounds of denial of injunction by analyzing the recent case of SRF Foundation v. Ram Education Society. FACTS: ‘SRF Foundation’ plaintiff no.1 is a registered non-profit society engaged in several social and community work including running schools such as “The Shri Ram School”. The name/mark … Continue reading Denial of Injunction on the grounds of Acquiescence and Delay by Plaintiffs: SRF Foundation v. Ram Education Society

Read more »

Criticism Sites using Confusingly Similar or Identical Domain Names

Medhavi Singh, an intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, looks into a trademark litigation relating to criticism sites using confusingly similar or identical domain names. Cybersquatting is the buzz word in the arena of domain name disputes and various.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) and Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) … Continue reading Criticism Sites using Confusingly Similar or Identical Domain Names

Read more »

Win.rar wins over the Disputed Domain Name winrar.com under UDRP Proceedings: win.rar GmbH v. Win Road Assistance Repairs Pvt. Ltd

Recently, granting a major victory to our client, the World Renowned Data Compression Software System provider win.rar GmbH, Administrative Panel, WIPO under UDRP, in its recent decision vide Case no. D2015-0398, issued transfer of disputed domain name www.winrar.com  to win.rar GmbH. This article is to highlight the recent UDRP dispute wherein the Complaint was re-filed … Continue reading Win.rar wins over the Disputed Domain Name winrar.com under UDRP Proceedings: win.rar GmbH v. Win Road Assistance Repairs Pvt. Ltd

Read more »

Delhi High Court Stays Order Restraining Lupin From Using Disputed Trademark ‘LUCYNTA’

Reportedly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court stayed an earlier order, dated 26 February, restraining Lupin from using the trademark “LUCYNTA” for its medicines, said to be deceptively similar to the trademark “NUCYNTA” of Johnson and Johnson. It was argued on behalf of Lupin that Johnson and Johnson are neither selling any goods under the mark nor … Continue reading Delhi High Court Stays Order Restraining Lupin From Using Disputed Trademark ‘LUCYNTA’

Read more »

High Court grants injunction against Haricharan Singh from using Trade mark/Trade Dress similar to Trade Dress/Trade Mark “John Deere”

Recently, Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction against Harcharan singh & Anr from using any trademark/ trade dress similar to the trade mark “John Deere”. The plaintiffs Deere group commonly known as John Deere have filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining infringement, dilution of trade marks, passing off trade dress, unfair competition, rendition … Continue reading High Court grants injunction against Haricharan Singh from using Trade mark/Trade Dress similar to Trade Dress/Trade Mark “John Deere”

Read more »

Recent decision of IPAB in the case of E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors

This article is relates to a recent judgment of Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter IPAB) dated 4th December 2014 in the case “E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors.” Brief Facts: On 11th March, 2009 the trademark registry refused the opposition of the E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company (appellant herein) and … Continue reading Recent decision of IPAB in the case of E.I.DU Pont De Nemours & Company V. Galpha Laboratories and Ors

Read more »

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010