Trademark

SC rules insolvency tribunals cannot decide contested trademark ownership; parties must pursue IP rights in civil or commercial courts

Noting that Bata's POWER brand enjoys significant recognition in the footwear market, the judges said there was a strong likelihood of consumer confusion

Justice Tejas Karia, in his order, recognised the 'Hermes' mark, its stylised logos and the distinctive three-dimensional shape of the Birkin handbag as well-known trademarks in India

Carnatic Cafe, a Delhi-based South Indian restaurant chain, discovered that Lemonpepper Hospitality started operating a restaurant in Bengaluru under the name 'Carnatic'

The Delhi High Court closes Nestle's trademark suit against Shankeshwar Utensils as company agrees to stop using 'Maggisun' and cancel the trademark

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that blocked Cognizant from using a logo similar to ATYATI's mark, asking the HC to decide the case within six months

Bombay HC issues John Doe injunction allowing Galderma to take immediate action against counterfeit CETAPHIL products; seizures made in New Delhi and Mumbai

High Court in February 2025 had directed Amazon Technology Inc. to pay the amount for infringement of the luxury brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) owned by Lifestyle Equities

The Delhi HC ruling came in an appeal by Vineet Kapur, who sought to register "2929" as a trademark for a cosmetics product

The earlier acceptance of 'CHU#$%&RAM' had raised concerns among intellectual property experts regarding its approval process

In India since 2014, Burger King Corp sued a Pune eatery for using its name since 2008, claiming brand harm and seeking a permanent injunction against its trademark use

Delhi HC issues summons in Moti Mahal's trademark suit against a Malcha Marg restaurant; the court seeks response on interim injunction plea, next hearing set for May 21

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed a journalist not to host an award event in the name of "Ratan Tata National Icon Award" or use "Tata" and "Tata Trusts" trademarks. Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after one Rajat Srivastava, founder of Delhi Today Group, agreed not to use Ratan Tata's name and refrain from proceeding with the award event under Ratan Tata's name. "This court notes that Tata is a well-known mark. Late Mr Ratan Tata is a well known figure. His name itself is liable to be protected," it said. The court asked the defendant, Srivastava, to give an undertaking and posted the matter on February 12 for compliance. The court was hearing a suit filed by Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons Pvt Ltd seeking to injunct and restrain the defendants from unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks Tata and Tata Trusts. They have also sought damages of over Rs 2 crore for allegedly causing harm to their reputation and goodwill. The court also said the .

Bombay High Court appoints former Supreme Court judge R V Raveendran to mediate matter between real estate tycoons

Earlier this month, Macrotech Developers had filed the suit before the Bombay HC against HoABL over the use of the name 'Lodha,' seeking Rs 5,000 crore in damages

The Bombay High Court on Monday suggested Abhishek Lodha and his brother Abhinandan Lodha to try and amicably resolve the issue over the use of 'Lodha' trademark. The Abhishek Lodha-promoted Macrotech Developers Ltd earlier this month filed a suit in the HC against Abhinandan Lodha's real estate firm, House of Abhinandan Lodha, claiming the name 'Lodha' was their trademark and no one else could use it. The suit sought Rs 5,000 crore as damages from Abhinandan Lodha's company. In an interim application, Macrotech Developers sought a perpetual injunction against the defendants from infringing their trademark 'Lodha'. On Monday, a single bench of Justice Arif Doctor while hearing the application said since the dispute was primarily between two brothers, the possibility of an amicable resolution should be attempted. "Ultimately it appears to be a dispute between two brothers. The genesis appears to be between the two brothers. Has some effort been made to sit down and resolve it?" Jus

During the pendency of the suit, Kirloskar Proprietary sought to withdraw the communications and claimed to have reinstated the trademark licence/user rights granted to Kirloskar Brothers

Abhishek and Abhinandan Lodha are locked in a legal battle over the use of the family name for their businesses. Abhishek has accused his brother Abhinandan of trademark infringement

Schezwan Chutney: Brand name or generic product? Delhi High Court is hearing arguments from Dabur India and Tata Consumer-owned Capital Foods

Mahindra says it would rebrand the name of its upcoming electric SUV "BE 6e" as "BE 6" to avoid unnecessary distractions