Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors

Commscope Inc. Of North CarolinavsUnion Of India

Commscope Inc. approached the Madras High Court seeking rectification of errors in its trademark registration certificate (No. 1380719). The petitioner argued that despite multiple representations, the Trademark Registry failed to issue the corrected certificate. The court intervened, directing the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, to correct the error and issue a fresh Registration Certificate, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner.

Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And OrsvsM/S Modern Industries And Ors

The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

M/S. LorealvsLoren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.

Ntn CorporationvsAssistant Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ntn Corporation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'NTW'. The court held that despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity between 'NTN' and 'NTW', the marks were not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellant's claims of prior use, concluding that the difference in letters ('W' vs 'N') was sufficient to distinguish the two trademarks.

Ralson India LimitedvsSham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.