Associated Chemicals v. Associated Chemicals Corporation

Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd AzamvsParamjeet Singh & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.

LorealvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed Loreal's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'PILLOW PROOF BLOWDRY' for hair care products. The court found that the mark was suggestive rather than descriptive, noting that while individual words are common, their combination does not immediately describe the product. Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with registration, provided a disclaimer is placed on the rights of the individual component words.

M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar SarafvsParas Agarwal T/A M/S Purushottam Agarwal and Co & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf, against the Defendants. The suit alleged infringement and passing off concerning registered trademarks and copyright related to jewellery products. Given the strong goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's 'MD' marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the Defendants' use of similar marks like 'MD PAYAL', the court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff. The injunction restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks until further hearing.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.vsPerilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.

Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.

Jaskaran SinghvsFlipkart Internet Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.