Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Brief — Dunlop International Limited vs Glorious Investment Limited And Anr. High Court at Calcutta • Order dated 11 June, 2025 • Case Nos. IPDTMA/14/2024 to IPDTMA/21/2024 • Neutral Citation: 2025:CalHC:OS:4567 • Judge: Ravi Krishan Kapur Introduction The case of Dunlop International Limited vs Glorious Investment Limited and Anr., adjudicated by the High Court at Calcutta on June 11, 2025, involves a significant trademark dispute concerning the registration of the word mark “Dunlop” across various classes. The plaintiffs, Dunlop International Limited and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd., challenged decisions by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that allowed the defendant, Glorious…

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited Date of Order: 14th August, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 539/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6856 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Amit Bansal Introduction This judgment addresses a dispute in intellectual property law concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to a bird device mark used in laundry and cleaning products. The plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, sought protection for its ‘Robin’ bird device mark, claiming prior adoption and use since 1899 globally and 1942 in India, against the defendant, Sauss Home Products Private…

Introduction The case of Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha, adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, delves into a significant intellectual property dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, Ceat Limited, a prominent manufacturer of automotive tyres with a legacy dating back to 1924, sought to protect its well-known trademark “CEAT” and associated artistic works against the defendants, Ramu Kushwha and another, who allegedly used deceptively similar marks such as “CREATA,” “CATE,” and “CAT” for identical goods. This interim application, decided on August 12, 2025, builds upon an earlier ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in…

Introduction This case revolves around a significant legal reference placed before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi concerning the applicability of procedural rules under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 to ongoing trademark opposition proceedings initiated under the repealed Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The reference arose from doubts expressed by a learned Single Judge in SAP SE v. Swiss Auto Products & Anr. regarding the correctness of an earlier decision in Mahesh Gupta v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr. The core issue pertains to whether changes introduced by the 2017 Rules—particularly timelines for filing evidence and the concept…

Case Study – Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Case Title: Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors., Date of Order: August 11, 2025, Case Number: WPA-IPD No.1 of 2024 Neutral Citation: Not available, Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta, Name of Judge: Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. Introduction Introduction: This case study examines a significant judgment from the High Court at Calcutta concerning the abandonment of a patent application due to non-compliance with statutory timelines under the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner, a foreign entity, challenged the rejection…

Infosys Limited Vs Southern Infosys Limited Date of Order: 1 August, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 257/2024 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Introduction The case of Infosys Limited versus Southern Infosys Limited represents a significant development in the intersection of trademark law and corporate governance under the Companies Act, 2013. It addresses the obligations of a company compelled by a court to change its name due to trademark infringement and whether such a company must continue to display its former name in compliance with statutory provisions.…

Introduction: This case delves into the intricate principles of trademark law, particularly focusing on deceptive similarity, the anti-dissection rule, and the dominant feature test in the context of composite marks. The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Pernod Ricard USA LLC, alleged that the respondent’s use of the mark “London Pride” for whisky infringed their registered trademarks “Blenders Pride” and “Imperial Blue” and amounted to passing off. The Supreme Court examined whether the marks created a likelihood of confusion among consumers, emphasizing the need for holistic comparison and the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Ultimately, the…

Introduction :This case involves a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off in the perfumery industry, where the plaintiffs, Arochem Ratlam Pvt Ltd and another, sought to protect their trademarks “AROCHEM” and “AROME” against the defendants, Arom Alchemists Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ use of “AROM ALCHEMISTS” was deceptively similar to their marks, leading to confusion among consumers. The court examined the phonetic and visual similarities, the honesty of adoption, and the goodwill associated with the marks, ultimately granting partial interim relief to the plaintiffs while denying others.    Factual Background: The plaintiffs and defendants are both…

Introduction: The dispute in Arcee Electronics v. M/s. Arceeika & Ors. revolves around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in an action for trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff, a long-established electronics retail chain, sought to protect its registered trademark “ARCEE” against alleged infringing use by the defendants under the name “ARCEEIKA.” While the plaintiff argued that the Court had jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants challenged the jurisdiction and sought return of the plaint under Order…

Lucas TVS Limited Vs. FFC Impex and Another Introduction The case of Lucas TVS Limited versus FFC Impex and Another represents a pivotal trademark dispute adjudicated by the Madras High Court, focusing on procedural compliance under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and the principles of natural justice in trademark opposition proceedings. The dispute arose when the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the opponent, FFC Impex, an opportunity to file evidence despite a lack of proof of service of the counter statement, prompting Lucas TVS to challenge the decision as a violation of statutory timelines. Factual Background Lucas TVS Limited,…