BRB Legal

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

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

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

4judgments
1court
2026years

Kent RO Systems Limited & Ors. v. Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors., CM APPL. 35806/2023

Delhi High Court · Dismissed

Appeals dismissed. The Division Bench applied the settled rule that an appeal against the exercise of discretion in granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction is an appeal on principle: the appellate court will not reassess the material and substitute its own view where the conclusion reached below was reasonably possible, and will interfere only where the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or settled principles were ignored. Observations were expressly prima facie and not a binding determination of rights.

Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Geonix International Private Limited & Anr., CM APPL. 39898/2024

Delhi High Court · Injunction granted

Appeals dismissed in a dispute over the resale of hard disk drives said to have reached end of life. The Division Bench held that a technical report by a staff engineer could not form the basis of a conclusion at the Order XXXIX stage until its author was cross-examined, and that in any event the report showed only that the drives were old, some inoperable, not in their original packaging, and carried stickers obscuring the date of manufacture, none of which showed any restriction on further sale by the original equipment manufacturers. The permission granted below to affix the respondents' own mark did not offend sections 29(2) or (7), there having been no effacing of the appellants' mark and no likelihood of confusion.

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.

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