Trade Marks Act, 1999

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of interlocutory orders in trademark disputes: Shyam Sel and Power Limited vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited (2022) INSC 192 (14 March 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 2(9), Intra-Court Appeals, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Appealability of Interlocutory Orders in Trademark Disputes Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 192 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can every order passed by a single judge of a High Court be challenged in an intra-court appeal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question […]

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of interlocutory orders in trademark disputes: Shyam Sel and Power Limited vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited (2022) INSC 192 (14 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Trademark Infringement: Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. wins against “Sai Renaissance” (19 January 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 30, Trademark Infringement

Supreme Court Upholds Trademark Infringement: Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022) Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 70 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J. (authored by B.R. Gavai, J.) Can a hotel use a name that is substantially similar to a registered trademark,

Supreme Court settles Trademark Infringement: Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. wins against “Sai Renaissance” (19 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Trademark Rights: Renaissance Hotel Wins Infringement Case (19 January 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Infringement of Trademark, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 28, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 29

Supreme Court Upholds Trademark Rights: Renaissance Hotel Wins Infringement Case Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 40 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Can a company prevent another business from using a similar name, even if the second business adds a prefix? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds Trademark Rights: Renaissance Hotel Wins Infringement Case (19 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns contempt order in trademark case: U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery (22 July 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Contempt of Court, Injunction, Judges, Passing Off, R. Banumathi, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Law

Supreme Court overturns contempt order in trademark case: U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether there was willful disobedience of an interim injunction order warranting punishment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Contempt Case Name: U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery Judgment Date: 22 July

Supreme Court overturns contempt order in trademark case: U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery (22 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (26 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 11, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 12, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 9

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2018 Citation: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2937-2942 OF 2018 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a restaurant use a trademark similar to a well-known

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (26 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows use of ‘Malabar’ with ‘Baroma’ for Biryani Rice: Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baroma Agro Product (2018)

/ Class 30, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Descriptive Trademarks, Judges, Passing Off, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Law

Supreme Court Allows Use of ‘Malabar’ with ‘Baroma’ for Biryani Rice: Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baroma Agro Product (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can claim exclusive rights over a descriptive word like ‘MALABAR’ in the sale of Biryani Rice. CASE TYPE: Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Case Name: Parakh Vanijya Private Limited vs.

Supreme Court allows use of ‘Malabar’ with ‘Baroma’ for Biryani Rice: Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baroma Agro Product (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata Exceptions in Banking Dispute: Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 6, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 11, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Res Judicata, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 45

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata Exceptions in Banking Dispute: Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior judgment upholding a contract that violates statutory prohibitions operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. CASE TYPE: Banking Law, Contract Law, Civil Procedure. Case Name: Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. [Judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata Exceptions in Banking Dispute: Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty (2018) Read Post »

Toyota Loses Trademark Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Prius Auto’s Rights (2017)

/ Judges, Navin Sinha, Passing Off, Ranjan Gogoi, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 2(1)(zg), Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 30

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a global trademark’s reputation automatically extends to India, allowing a passing off claim against a local user, even if the global brand hasn’t established a significant presence in the Indian market. CASE TYPE: Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Case Name: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs. M/S Prius Auto Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Toyota Loses Trademark Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Prius Auto’s Rights (2017) Read Post »

Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of ‘Royal Orchid’ Registration in Class 42: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (2017)

/ Deceptive Similarity, Intellectual Property Law, Judges, Prior Use, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Registration of Trademark, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trademark Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the trademark ‘Royal Orchid’ can be registered in Class 42, concerning hotel services, given a prior registration of ‘Orchid’ in the same class by another party. CASE TYPE: Intellectual Property (Trademark) Case Name: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 14 December 2017 Introduction Date of

Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of ‘Royal Orchid’ Registration in Class 42: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top