5 judgments of the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court and 1 other court applying Trade Marks Act s.30, from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.
Appeals partly allowed in long-running litigation between two crocodile device proprietors. The Division Bench held that infringement of the trade mark and of copyright in the device was established and upheld the decree of permanent injunction, and found no acquiescence that would disentitle the plaintiffs to relief. The claim in passing off, however, was not maintainable because goodwill had not been established, which is a reminder that registration carries the infringement claim but not the common law action. The findings on costs were set aside: the suit had been partly decreed in favour of the defendants, and there had been an eleven year delay in examining a key witness, so it would not be just for the defendants to bear the entirety of costs.
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.
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).
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.
Appeal dismissed and the interim injunction restraining use of SVT HOTEL SPECIAL for asafoetida confirmed. A registered mark is prima facie valid under section 31, and to displace that at the interlocutory stage the defendant must show that the registration is ex facie impermissible or was granted in gross violation of the Act, a high threshold not met here. Whether HOTEL SPECIAL merely denotes the intended purpose of bulk sale to hoteliers, and so attracts section 30, is a matter of evidence and not a ground to refuse an injunction against a mark registered after ten years of use. The defendant's use of the registered symbol on an unregistered mark supported the restraint against passing off. The trial court's reasoning that a claim of prior use amounted to an admission of distinctiveness was wrong, but did not warrant interference given the limited scope of Order XLIII Rule 1.
