K. Narayanan and Ors. v. S. Murali

2008 (10) SCC 479 Brief Facts: Appellants were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling banana chips and had adopted the trademark ‘A-ONE’ in 1986. Appellants had applied for trade mark registration before the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai in 1999. The said application was pending at the time of the present Civil Appeal.Continue reading “K. Narayanan and Ors. v. S. Murali”

M/S Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. M/S Patanjali Ayurveda Limited & Anr.; Order disposing Interim Application

M/S Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. M/S Patanjali Ayurveda Limited & Anr. Date of decison: 06.08.2020 Madras High Court For brief facts and history of litigation, you can refer our post on ex-parte order here. We are not repeating the same for sake of brevity. The present summary is of the order on the adjudicationContinue reading “M/S Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. M/S Patanjali Ayurveda Limited & Anr.; Order disposing Interim Application”

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.  Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrationsContinue reading “Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.”

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II

In our last post on the above subject captioned matter, we had covered the Brief Facts of the matter, the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the present matter and the key takeaways from the said decision. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge had granted a temporary injunction towards the removal of said video. TheContinue reading “Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II”

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I

The Bombay High Court in earlier part of the year 2020, has dealt with the case of permissible limits of action of viewers who review products or services. The decision is in the case of Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali[1] wherein the Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained by an orderContinue reading “Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I”

Trademark for Photographers

What is Trademark? A trademark is a source identifier in the form of any indicia (sign, design or expression) that is capable of distinguishing a product/service of a certain company or person from the products of others. It can be in the form of word marks, stylised marks, logos, labels, product packaging / trade dress,Continue reading “Trademark for Photographers”

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant manufactured whisky under the mark ‘Peter Scot’ since the year 1968. Respondents, an industry body of distillers, blenders and exporters of Scotch whisky, learnt about the Appellant’s trade mark application in 1974.[1] Respondents hadContinue reading “Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.”

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 15 (SC) The Respondents were the registered owner of three trademarks, the common feature of all of which was the words “Field Marshal”. Out of the three, the first trademark was registered in 1964 and the second and third wereContinue reading “Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.”

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors.

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 1 (SC) (Image Credits: Kārlis Dambrāns from Latvia; Image and Creative Common License availalbe at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#/media/File:2016_Toyota_Prius_(ZVW50R)_Hybrid_liftback_(2016-04-02)_01.jpg) Brief Facts: Plaintiff, an automobile manufacturer was incorporated in Japan. Plaintiff had launched world’s first commercial hybrid car called ‘Prius’, in Japan, in the yearContinue reading “Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors.”

M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s. Patanjali Ayurved Limited

M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s. Patanjali Ayurved Limited Date of Order: 17th July, 2020 in O.A. No. 258 of 2020 in C.S.No.163 of 2020 In the High Court of Madras The present post covers the ex-parte order passed by the High Court of Madras on the application for Interim Relief filed by theContinue reading “M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s. Patanjali Ayurved Limited”

ITC LIMITED V. NESTLE INDIA LTD. – CURIOUS CASE OF ‘THE MAGIC NOODLES’ – PART II: POST TRIAL DECISION

ITC Limited v. Nestle India Ltd. Decided on: 10.06.2020 In the High Court of Madras On 10th June, 2020, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras provided a final decision on the suit for passing off filed by ITC Limited (hereinafter ‘ITC’) against Nestle India Limited (hereinafter ‘Nestle’) over latter’s use of the mark ‘MAGICAL MASALA’.Continue reading “ITC LIMITED V. NESTLE INDIA LTD. – CURIOUS CASE OF ‘THE MAGIC NOODLES’ – PART II: POST TRIAL DECISION”

REGISTRABILITY OF ‘GENERIC.COM’ MARKS – PART – II: THE DISSENTING OPINION IN USPTO V. BOOKING.COM

Recently, the Supreme Court of United States held that marks which are generic when combined with a top-level domain name may qualify as registrable marks provided the consumers do not consider them to be generic. The decision is in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V. By an 8: 1 majority the matter has been decided against USPTO.Continue reading “REGISTRABILITY OF ‘GENERIC.COM’ MARKS – PART – II: THE DISSENTING OPINION IN USPTO V. BOOKING.COM”