BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.29(1)

Section 29(1), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.29(1), from 2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
2courts
2026years

Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 42036 of 2025

Bombay High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and the injunction restraining use of the Kataria name, domain and corporate name set aside. The Division Bench found the fields of operation distinct, one party trading in insurance brokerage and the other in insurance of gems and jewellery, with no overlap and therefore no infringement under section 29. It weighed the continuous use of Kataria as a surname by a group of companies trading on goodwill built by predecessors, and the serious prejudice that restraining that use would cause. An undertaking not to enter the gems and jewellery insurance business was held sufficient to meet the apprehension raised. Whether the use was bona fide, continuous and prior remains for trial.

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).

Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. v. Seraphic Divine Beauty Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 252/2019

Delhi High Court · Suit decreed

Suit decreed against an ex parte defendant that had organised a beauty pageant under a mark consisting of the plaintiffs' registered mark with a prefix added. On the test for infringement, the Court held that the duration of confusion is immaterial: the fact that a customer is confused even momentarily is enough, and that closer examination and enquiry might later dispel the confusion does not detract from the similarity that caused it. Initial interest confusion in the mind of an unwary customer was made out. Adoption was dishonest and intended to show an association, which also amounted to passing off.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

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