BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.30(2)(e)

Section 30(2)(e), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Rajasthan High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.30(2)(e), from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
2courts
2024–2026years

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.

Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal & Ors., CM APPL. 38801/2024

Delhi High Court · Referred to larger bench

Final orders deferred and four questions referred to a Larger Bench on an issue that affects a large number of cases: whether a suit for infringement lies at all against the proprietor of a registered trade mark in respect of the use of that mark; if it does, whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted against such use; whether such an injunction can issue without first proceeding through the sequence contemplated by section 124, namely a section 30(2)(e) defence, a plea of invalidity in response, the Court being satisfied that the plea is tenable, an issue being framed, the suit adjourned for three months, rectification initiated within that period and trial stayed pending its outcome; or whether a bare plea of invalidity in the plaint suffices. The Bench recorded a conflict between Raj Kumar Prasad, followed in Corza, and another view.

Kutbuddin Kanorwala v. Zakir Hussain Kanorwala & Anr.

Rajasthan High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and the order dismissing both the suit and the counter claim set aside. The trial court had thrown out the suit on an application under sections 28(3), 29 and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, treating it as though it were an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The Court held that section 30(2)(e) protects the use of two registered marks against each other only where they are registered for the same or similar goods or services, and does not apply where the registrations are in different classes. In any event the suit was for infringement and passing off together, and by section 27 a passing off action is not affected by whether either side holds a registration, so it could not be dismissed on that footing. There is no provision barring a composite suit for infringement and passing off.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

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