Corporate Law : The article explains that trademark registration protects the composite mark as a whole, while Section 17 restricts exclusive righ...
Corporate Law : The article explains the trademark filing and prosecution process in Bhutan, including examination, publication, opposition and re...
Corporate Law : Sensory judgement: A legislative comment on the expansion of the ‘mark’ and the scientific resolution of graphical representat...
Corporate Law : The court ruled that using a registered trademark as a keyword to divert online traffic can amount to trademark infringement. The ...
Company Law : Even after incorporation, a company name can be changed if it conflicts with a registered trademark. Section 16 empowers the Gover...
Corporate Law : Beware of fraudsters soliciting money for IP applications. Report any suspicious claims to the office. Applications processed lega...
CA, CS, CMA : Company Secretaries in Practice are allowed to be registered as Trade Marks Agent under Rule 144 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, r...
Corporate Law : A writ petition is filed before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur while challenging the Circular dated 28.08.2020 being issu...
Corporate Law : The Union Cabinet in its meeting dated 15.09.2020 gave the approval for signing the MoU with Denmark in the field of IP Cooperatio...
Corporate Law : A trademark application is processed in accordance with The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and The Trade Marks Rules, 2017. 1. Application ...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that Google could not use the registered trademark HINDWARE as advertising keywords and granted a perman...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court ruled that the use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google Ads amounts to use under the Trade Marks Ac...
Income Tax : High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capita...
Corporate Law : The issue was whether the NCLT could declare ownership of a trademark during CIRP. The Supreme Court held that title disputes not ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court grants injunction against Franchise India Brands Ltd. and Ichakdana Food Services LLP for unauthorized use of 'Ra...
Corporate Law : Government proposes draft amendments to Trade Marks Rules 2017 introducing a Code of Conduct, disciplinary procedures, and complai...
Corporate Law : Calcutta High Court put on hold a public notice restricting online legal advertising for trademark registration, keeping the issue...
Corporate Law : Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules 2024 now in effect. New procedures for complaints, inquiries, and appeals under the...
Corporate Law : Explore the proposed Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024 by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Learn about adjudication pr...
Corporate Law : The common or generic names of the commodity contained in the package and in case of packages with more than one product, the name...
Sanjay Chadha Trading As M/S Eveready Tools Emporium Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) A well known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of Trademarks Act cannot be allowed to be infringed Conclusion: Delhi High Court dismissed appeals and restrained appellant from using word ‘EVEREADY’, as the same is a well-known mark due to […]
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction to INTEL on the ground that the lis no longer exists between the parties and the Defendants were willing to suffer permanent injunction in terms of the prayer clause 37(i) & (ii) of the plaint, which was pertaining to prevent defendants to use the word INTEL as their trademark and trade name.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction and compensation to the plaintiff as the triple identity test of identical/deceptively similar trademarks, identical services and trade channels stands satisfied and use of the impugned trademarks/domain name by Defendant constitutes infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trademarks in present facts of the case.
Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal on the plea of trademark infringement have observed that the particular word (Vasundhara) in dispute in this case is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted to the plaintiff and he does not enjoy the monopoly for use of the said word (Vasundhara).
Delhi High Court held that based on principle of initial interest confusion trademark infringement proved for using RAJNIPAAN, similar to take to well-known trademark RANJIGANDHA, even though no actual sale is finally created as a result of the confusion.
Held that ex parte order of ad interim injunction granted before notice to opposite party under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX C.P.C.. cannot be treated at part with other ex parte orders/decree.
Held that ad-interim injunction provided from the use of TATA in website tatabonus.com; crypto products by the name of $TATA or any other product being sold on the website www.hakunamatata.finance.
I’ve come across several inquiries on whether they can use their names or last names as brand names, is it against the law for a legitimate user to operate under their own name?
Held that in case of Trademark License Agreement an exclusive license to use the trademark is granted and hence the same is covered within the phrase transfer of right to use the goods and hence not leviable to service tax.
Learn about the process of cancelling a registered trademark in India. Understand the provisions and requirements under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
