BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.27

Section 27, Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court and 1 other court applying Trade Marks Act s.27, from 2023–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
3courts
2023–2026years

Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024

Delhi High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and an interim injunction granted restraining use of "Lotus Splash" and other Lotus derivative marks for cosmetics and beauty products. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, overall similarity and the perspective of the average consumer as explained by the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard, the Division Bench held that an injunction was warranted at the prima facie stage. It disagreed with the Single Judge that the respondents' use fell within the exception in section 30(2)(a).

Emerge Classes Private Limited v. Kashmir Institute of Excellence & Ors.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court · Dismissed

Appeal dismissed and the injunction restraining the appellant coaching institute upheld. The competing logos both used the infinity symbol with the word EMERGE and the words INFINITY AND BEYOND, and the appellant had additionally taken the plaintiff's registered brand KIE into its own logo, which was likely to leave the student community believing that both centres were run by KIE. On prior user, the plaintiffs had amalgamated three institutes and assigned their separate brands to the new entity, and the Court held, following Dhariwal Industries and section 39, that the new entity could claim both prior user and the transferred goodwill of its predecessors. Appellate interference with a discretionary injunction is confined to cases where the trial court acted arbitrarily, contrary to law or perversely.

M/S Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals & Anr. v. M/S Wipro Enterprises Limited & Anr.

Kerala High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and the injunction restraining use of CHANDRA set aside. The Division Bench accepted the trial court's finding that the appellants' label, colour combination, writing style and design were deceptively similar to the respondents' CHANDRIKA, so misrepresentation was made out. The appeal turned on the third element of passing off, damage. The respondents sold Ayurvedic bath soap and the appellants washing soap and bleaching preparations, and the respondents' own market share table showed their share held steady at around 8% after the appellants entered in 2020. Since no economic loss was shown, the third element failed and no injunction could issue.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

All 233 judgments on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Search the IP Case Digest