- AI
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign filing license
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- Personality rights
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Trademark Registration in Foreign
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
- Women Empower
Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘Nikind’ Mark from Trade Marks Register for being Deceptively Similar to ‘Nimekind’ Mark
Introduction In the case of Mankind Pharma Limited v. Arvind Kumar and Anr.[1], the Delhi High Court directed the removal of the ‘Nikind’ mark from the trade marks registry, for being identical and deceptively similar to the mark ‘Nimekind’ owned by the Indian pharmaceutical & healthcare company, Mankind Pharma Limited. The Petitioner was engaged in … Continue reading Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘Nikind’ Mark from Trade Marks Register for being Deceptively Similar to ‘Nimekind’ Mark
Read more »The High Court of Delhi Grants Permanent Injunction in Favour of Louis Vuitton
Introduction The High Court of Delhi (“the Court”) on 18th April 2023, in Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Santosh & Ors.[1], issued a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing and selling counterfeit products under the Plaintiff’s luxury brand “Louis Vuitton”. The Court also ordered the Defendants to pay INR 9.59 Lakhs as damages and costs … Continue reading The High Court of Delhi Grants Permanent Injunction in Favour of Louis Vuitton
Read more »RPG Enterprises Limited v Riju Ghoshal Trading As RPG
Introduction The plaintiff company is an Indian industrial group with over twenty years of business. The adoption of its trademark RPG originates from the company’s founder and well-known industrialist Mr. Rama Prasad Goenka. Over the years, RPG and the companies in its group have adopted a number of stylized/descriptive trademarks, including the mark RPG, to … Continue reading RPG Enterprises Limited v Riju Ghoshal Trading As RPG
Read more »Who Really Gets to Decide A Well-Know Mark?
The statutory provisions relating to trademarks, deem the registrar in the trade mark office as the authority for determining whether a mark is well-known or not[i]. However, there are more marks adjudged as “well-known” by the courts, than determined by the Registrar at the Trade Marks office. This glaring contradiction between the law and practice, … Continue reading Who Really Gets to Decide A Well-Know Mark?
Read more »“ISKCON” Declared a Well-Known Trademark”
In a suit for trademark infringement filed by the religious organisation, ISCKON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), The Bombay High Court declared that “ISCKON” is a well-known trademark under the definition given in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The suit was filed against Isckon Apparel Pvt Ltd for using the mark “ISKCON” … Continue reading “ISKCON” Declared a Well-Known Trademark”
Read more »