Puma Se v. Surender Singh And Anr.

Jai Rajendra Impex Private LimitedvsDeputy Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.

Hemant BandodkarvsVertellus Speciality Materials

The Plaintiffs allege patent infringement regarding two patents related to a high yielding process for manufacturing DCDPS with near zero effluents. They seek ad-interim reliefs and preservation of documents.

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.VvsThe Union Of India

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors.vsSarfaraz Khan

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.