Astha Jain & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.

New Balance Athletics Inc.vsNineplus Shoes Private Limited

In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.

Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F.vsM/S Udhog Mandir

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision regarding the territorial jurisdiction for a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to return/reject the plaint, arguing that the cause of action did not arise in Bikaner. However, the High Court ruled that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides a special rule allowing an infringement suit to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, even if the cause of action is elsewhere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

German Remedies Ltd.vsCommissioner Of Central Excise

German Remedies Ltd. challenged the Commissioner's decision regarding the classification and duty rate for its Acetyl Salicylic Acid (ASA) tablets. The dispute centered on whether the product, which was previously classified as a patent/proprietary medicament due to branding, should be treated as a generic product after dropping the trade mark. The Tribunal found that 'ASA' is merely an abbreviation of the chemical name and not a proprietary designation.

M/s.Mysore Silk UdyogvsM/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP

The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.

Grena LimitedvsAxon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.