BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.29(2)(b)

Section 29(2)(b), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.29(2)(b), from 2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
1court
2026years

Ms. Anuradha Sharma & Anr. v. Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors., CM. APPl. 75353/2025

Delhi High Court · Set aside

Appeal allowed and the interlocutory injunction set aside. Beyond the shared element "Jeeva" and "Jiva", the Division Bench found no visual or conceptual similarity between the competing trade dresses: the appellants' mark features herbal plants while the respondents' consists of a lotus flower. The phrase "By Baidyanath" in the appellants' mark operates as a source identifying feature, and together with the prefix "Shatam" produces sufficient dissimilarity that confusion or association does not arise. Passing off failed independently for want of misrepresentation, which remains a crucial ingredient, and no material was placed on record showing actual or likely damage to goodwill. Having found no deceptive similarity, the Court did not examine goodwill and damage.

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).

Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Chacha Cloth House, CM APPL. 49543/2025

Delhi High Court · Injunction granted

Appeal allowed and an injunction granted against use of a mark sharing the appellant's dominant textual element. Following the Supreme Court in the AMBAL and ANDAL case, the Division Bench held that where the main feature of rival composite marks is phonetically similar and likely to confuse the average consumer, visual dissimilarity between the whole logos does not mitigate infringement. It added that a word mark registration entitles the proprietor to injunct not only a deceptively similar word mark but also any device mark whose prominent feature is textual, where that text infringes. Once a prima facie case of infringement is made out, an injunction must follow under Midas Hygiene.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

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