Cancellation of Trade Mark : High Court Explains the Effect of Trade Marks Act, 1999

Cancellation of Trade Mark : High Court Explains the Effect of Trade Marks Act, 1999

In an interesting case, Z has obtained the registration of the device mark in respect of identical goods for which the petitioner's device mark stands registered across 40 countries which discloses ‘bad faith’ on part of Z. Action of Z was termed trade mark squatting which amounts to ‘bad faith’ and fall squarely within the scope of sub-section (10) (ii) of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and registration of mark of Z is liable to be cancelled under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. 

Goodai Global Inc v. Shahnawaz Siddiqu [2025] GCtR 1903 (Delhi)

HC Explains the Situations in which Trade Mark can be Removed

HC Explains the Situations in which Trade Mark can be Removed

It has been held proviso to S. 47(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 makes it clear that an application under S. 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Act in relation to any goods or services can be refused if it is shown that during the relevant period, there is bona fide use of the Trade Mark in question by the proprietor in relation to either goods or services of the same description; or goods or services associated with those goods or services in respect of which the Trade Mark in question is registered.

Hubei Ji Su Kan Dian Technology Co. Ltd v. Lark Engg Company (I) Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1896 (Delhi)

HC Explains the Law on the Duty of the Proprietor of the Mark

HC Explains the Law on Duty of the Proprietor of the Mark 

Before adoption of a Mark it is the duty of the proprietor of the Mark to carry out a search of the Register of Trade Marks. A stricter approach has to be adopted by courts while judging the likelihood of confusion between the two competing Marks in respect of pharmaceutical products. In public interest, there cannot be two medicinal preparations bearing the same name from different sources and with different compositions. 

Reckitt and Coleman Overseas Health Ltd v. Ind Swift Ltd [2025] GCtR 1893 (Delhi)

Suit For Injunction Restraining Passing Off Dismissed with Costs

Suit For Injunction Restraining Passing Off Dismissed with Costs 

In one of the case where suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off of trademark, copyright etc. was filed, after noting the agency agreement which plaintiff had with the Company and also noting that there are omissions in the plaint and the filing of an application under S.9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2 lacs. 

Avantika Elcon Pvt Ltd v. Ajit Industries Pvt. Ltd [2018] GCtR 6539 (Delhi)

On Income Tax : An Important View of High Court

 On Income Tax : An Important View of High Court 

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 20 April 2018.

It has been commented at page 22 of Hilton Roulunds Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax [2018] GCtR 2752 (Delhi) thus : - 

"An exclusive right to use, to the exclusion of the owner, though termed as license, could be a transfer of title in the mark".

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link : - 

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. 

On Invalidity of Trademark Registration ; A Legal Issue

On Invalidity of Trademark Registration ; A Legal Issue

An interesting Judgment has been passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 6 March 2023.

If we would see Burger King Corporation v Ranjan Gupta [2023] GCtR 519 (Delhi) it was commented at page 15 that "the plea raised by the defendant with regard to the invalidity of registrations granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the trademark BURGER KING and other formative marks, is prima facie not tenable."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi HC can be downloaded free of cost from the link - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment - Then searching by date (for example) as 6 March 2023. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.