In Bata India Limited v Chawla Boot House, the Delhi High Court has recognised that Bata India Ltd’s trademark POWER is well known in India, and restrained the defendant from using the word ‘power’ in respect of footwear and related products.
In Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v Jain, the Bombay High Court has decided to make an example of the defendants and imposed hefty costs of Rs50 million.
A recent case in India has addressed the question of whether a licensee can claim rights in a licensed mark when faced with the termination of the licence agreement.
The Penal Code sets out punishments for cheating, counterfeiting and possession of instruments for making counterfeits, among other things. The code’s provisions can be invoked in criminal actions, in addition to the provisions of specific statutes.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals v Ridley Life Science creates a strict action plan from the moment that a drug and its packaging are created.
In a dispute between New Balance Athletics Inc and Apex Shoe Company Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of New Balance and issued a permanent injunction preventing Apex from using the mark NEW BALANCE.
In Whatman International Limited v Mehta, the Delhi High Court has taken a stern stance against habitual infringers. The decision shows that the Indian courts are increasingly adopting a zero-tolerance policy in such cases.
India's banks operate in one of the world's most active fintech markets. As fraudsters try to take advantage, financial companies must be ready to stop brand infringement.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application by Bigtree Entertainment – owner of the mark BOOKMYSHOW – for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark BOOKMYEVENT.
In 2015 the Indian legislature passed a new act – the Commercial Courts Act – which came into effect in January 2016, with the objective of streamlining and expediting commercial lawsuits, including IP disputes.
Overruling an earlier decision of the Full Bench in a similar case, a Special Bench of the Delhi High Court has held in Carlsberg Breweries v Som Distilleries that a composite suit for design infringement and passing off may be maintained.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Horlicks’ application for an interim injunction against Heinz India, holding that an advertiser is allowed to make a comparison with other products as long as such comparison is true.
While the Indian Patent Office has four branches (in Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai), there is only one branch of the Design Office, which is found in Kolkata.
In an exclusive interview, Allison McDade shared her approach to tackling imitation convenience stores in Asia and explained the challenges stemming from the company’s expansion.
In Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Louboutin, stating that the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act is not absolute.