Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v. Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli

Umaid MohonotvsUnion Of India

Umaid Mohonot appealed against an order dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellants argued that the notice was invalid because related disputes concerning the 'Arrow' trademark were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court ultimately held that the administrative action taken by the Registrar was distinct from the private inter se dispute, thus upholding the validity of the show cause notice.

Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food ProductsvsMr. Dhruv Singh And Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petitions filed by M/s Parul Food Products against Mr. Dhruv Singh, cancelling two registered trade marks ('FUNSHINE' and a Device Mark) in Class 30. The court found that these Impugned Marks were deceptively and identically similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'FUNFINE'. Given the Petitioner's prior use since 2005 compared to the Respondent's registration date of 2017, the judgment reinforced the principle that a prior user's rights supersede subsequent registrations when likelihood of confusion exists.

Puma SevsSh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.

Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag EnterprisesvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises, which sought to restore a lapsed trademark registration. The petitioner had failed to renew their 'TIGER' mark after 2006 and only attempted renewal in 2022, sixteen years later. The court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of such undue delay, especially since the RTI response confirmed an O3 notice was generated in 2006 but remained untraceable.

Sh. Amar TulsiyanvsHarshil Jayeshbhai Shah

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing his registered and adopted trademarks (NIINE, NINE, 9) used in food and personal hygiene products. The court found that the defendant's adoption and intended use of 'Nine Plus' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks and constituted infringement.