BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.29(4)

Section 29(4), Trade Marks Act: case law

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

3judgments
2courts
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.

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.

Karan Rathore v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2024

Delhi High Court · Rectification allowed

Appeal allowed, an order dismissing an opposition set aside, and the resulting registration expunged. Two points carry beyond the facts. The respondent had earlier been authorised for six months to sell goods under the appellant's mark on e-commerce platforms, which the Court read as implicit acceptance of the appellant's rights. And a mark owner is always entitled to expand its goods and services as a natural consequence of business expansion, so viewed commercially there could be confusion that the competing goods stem from the same trade source. With identical marks and similar goods sharing a consumer base and trade channels, section 11 barred registration.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

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