BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.47

Section 47, Trade Marks Act: case law

4 judgments of the Delhi High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.47, from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

4judgments
1court
2024–2026years

K.S. Oils Limited v. Shivang Edibles Oils Limited & Anr., CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL. 14639- 14642/2026

Delhi High Court · Set aside

Ex parte ad interim injunction set aside. The Division Bench held this was a fit case in which notice ought to have been issued to the defendant before any interim relief, given the competing claims to proprietorship and the appellant's prior and extensive use of the marks. On maintainability, it held, following Rajesh Batra v. Grandlay Electricals, that an appeal against an ex parte ad interim injunction is maintainable, and that the recent decisions relied on by the respondent did not hold otherwise but merely declined interference on their own facts.

Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. & Anr., CM APPL. 45700/2025

Delhi High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and a plaint restored that had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) as disclosing a purely illusory cause of action. The Division Bench held that the plaint contained specific averments of continuous and exclusive use of the mark in India, a licence agreement, substantial sales and goodwill, and the defendant's adoption of deceptively similar packaging, all of which must be presumed true at that stage and together disclose a cause of action. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds is extraneous to the inquiry. The allegation that the plaintiff had suppressed two agreements failed because they formed no part of the plaint and their effect was a triable issue, a suppressed fact being material only if its disclosure would alter the decision.

Innocenti SA v. Examiner of Trade Marks & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 76/2024

Delhi High Court · Set aside

Appeal allowed on a short and useful point: the Registrar had accepted the marks for advertisement by orders giving one set of reasons, and then rejected the same marks by an order whose reasoning was completely opposite. The Court held that the two orders could not coexist and set aside the impugned order on that ground alone.

Mrs. Arti Gupta & Anr. v. Puran Rana & Anr.

Delhi High Court · Rectification allowed

Rectification allowed and the respondent's registration of KONVIO NEER in Class 35 cancelled. The petitioner had registered KONVIO and KONVIO NEER in Class 11 with effect from 2018 and had already obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent in a civil suit, while the respondent's impugned registration took effect only from December 2022. Adoption of an identical mark for identical and similar goods years later could not be treated as honest or bona fide, and the registration was held to contravene sections 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

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