M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v. Akash Chaudhary

Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras EnterprisesvsPragya Trading Company, Kaserate

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.

The Gillette Company LlcvsTigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, The Gillette Company Llc, to continue its existing interim injunction against the defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to their prior use of the mark compared to the defendants' recent adoption. This decision maintains the status quo while the main suit proceeds, though the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any losses incurred if they ultimately fail in the litigation.

M/s Meenu Electric Co.vsM/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.

Major League Baseball Properties Inv.vsRegistrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Delhi

Major League Baseball Properties Inc. appealed the Registrar's decision that their opposition against the 'BLUE-JAY' trademark application was abandoned due to procedural delays in filing evidence. While the initial rejection was based purely on technical grounds, the Delhi High Court allowed MLBP to pursue its substantive claims. The court disposed of the appeal but permitted MLBP to file a cancellation petition, ensuring the merits of their opposition would be considered.

M/S Gufic Biosciences LimitedvsM/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors

The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.