Vaibhav Keni

Content from this author

• AVATHAR v AVATAR: mere phonetic similarity is insufficient, there must be a likelihood of confusion, says Delhi High Court
• Trademarks Office delivers landmark interpretation of Rule 34 on expedited processing
• Bulgari successfully prevents rival from using similar mark for jewellery, but fails to make prima facie case of design infringement
• Delhi High Court: intent to target Indian market is sine qua non condition to exercise jurisdiction
• Delhi High Court: adoption of ‘Delhi Public School’ marks by purported “permitted users” prima facie invalid
• Delhi High Court: defendants’ adoption of SINGH + SINGH marks “fraught with mischief” and not in good faith
• Bombay High Court: phonetic differences between STIMULIV and STIMULET not sufficient to tell one from the other
• Bombay High Court: owner of YOGI marks entitled to statutory protection within specific class
• Delhi High Court modifies ex parte ad interim injunction due to concealment of material facts
• Bombay High Court grants ex parte relief against defendant’s use of pharma mark
• BMW successfully prevents use of DMW for electric rickshaws

• Bombay High Court: plaintiffs cannot claim proprietary rights over the words ‘Marathi Bana’
• Bombay High Court: defendant cannot use the words ‘White Chinese Pepper Masala’ or ‘Black Chinese Pepper Masala’
• Bombay High Court: defendants’ adoption and use of well-known mark cannot be said to be honest
• Bombay High Court rules that ISKCON is a coined trademark
• Delhi High Court declares that PULSE is a well-known mark
• Delhi High Court: VISTARA deserves to be recognised as well-known mark
• Bombay High Court: one cannot contend that a word is generic and seek registration of a mark where that word is dominant
• Delhi High Court: ‘book my’ is descriptive and generic English term
• Courts will deal with manufacturers of counterfeit drugs severely, warns Bombay High Court
• Delhi High Court: defendants copied all main features of Marico’s PARACHUTE-branded product