Entrepreneur Media Inc v. The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi

Havells India LimitedvsRatheesh Govindan & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against the defendants, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and logos (like STANDARD, STANGUARD, and HOMESAFE) by the respondents for electrical products. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess common law rights in these brands due to long-term usage. Consequently, the defendants were directed to suspend exports and disclose their manufacturing sources pending further hearings.

Tarakant SangwanivsApollo Pipes Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.

Kiranakart Technologies Private LimitedvsMohammad Arshad & Anr.

Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.

M/S Mittal ElectronicsvsMr. Rohit Rana

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.

Ms C R Auluck And Sons Private LimitedvsMs Dharamlaxmi Machines Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registered trademark 'DHARMLAXMI' belonging to the respondent, in favor of the petitioner who owns 'LUXMI'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting deceptive similarity between the two marks and products (sewing machines), noting that the respondent was using the mark in a manner different from its registration. This interim order is crucial for the petitioner as it prevents the respondent from continuing to operate under the disputed trademark while the rectification petition proceeds.