The Delhi High Court recently restrained Pritamdas Arora, trading as M/s Medserve (“Defendant”) from manufacturing, selling or dealing in counterfeit medical devices bearing Johnson & Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) trademarks, SURGICEL, ETHICON and LIGACLIP. Further, the court has awarded Johnson & Johnson damages of INR 3.34 crores (approximately) for the Defendants’ counterfeiting activities. The Plaintiff, through its...
Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s (“Registry”) refusal of Mocemsa Care’s (“Mocemsa”) application for its “OH THAT! NATURAL” Device mark (“Impugned Mark”), ruling that the mark was distinctive despite consisting of common English words. Mocemsa in the appeal submitted that it had been using the Impugned Mark for products in...
Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry’s (“Registry”) order of dismissing Diageo Scotland Ltd.’s (“Appellant”) opposition against the application for the mark CAPTAIN BLUE. As per the Appellant, it is the proprietor of the CAPTAIN family of marks since 2006 which are being used in relation to Class 33 goods, i.e.,...
On April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the direction issued by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court requiring Azure Hospitality Private Limited (“Azure”) to make payment to Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL”) based on the tariff rates prescribed by the only registered copyright society in India, Recorded Music Performance Limited, if it intends...
Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry’s (“Registry”) order where the Registry refused the application filed by Mankind Prime Labs Private Limited (“Mankind”) for the mark CROSSRELIEF in Class 5. The Court ruled that, CROSS is common in the medical industry and is considered publici juris, thereby not subject to monopoly. Hence, the Court found...
Recently, the High Court of Delhi, ruled in favour of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar (“Plaintiff”) in a copyright infringement suit filed against Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors. (“Defendants”), thereby, awarding a cost of Rs. 2 crores to the Plaintiff. It was the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendants had utilized the original composition of the Plaintiff’s...
Recently, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, and seeking an extension of the patent term. The appellants had applied for a patent in 2005, which was granted in 2012, with a 20-year validity period. The appellants initially invoked...
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has significantly observed that trade marks comprising solely of numbers and number combinations can be considered inherently distinctive and do not necessarily need to acquire secondary meaning through use to be considered eligible for registration. The judgment emanates out of an appeal against a refusal order passed...
Recently, the High Court of Delhi refused to temporarily restrain the bike-taxi services’ company, Uber India, from broadcasting a video advertisement titled ‘Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head’ that allegedly infringed/disparaged Royal Challengers’ trade mark ‘ROYAL CHALLENGERS BENGALURU’ by showing the “deprecatory” variant of the mark as ‘ROYALLY CHALLENGED BENGALURU’ (and incorrectly portraying the common...
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently declined to grant interim relief to Young Achievers (“Appellant”) in an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge in IMS Learning Resources Private Limited vs. Young Achievers [CS(COMM) 602/2018] (“Impugned Judgment”). In the Impugned Judgment, the Ld. Single Judge had restrained the Appellant...
© 2026 Created with Royal Elementor Addons
