Levi Strauss & Company v. Suffee Garments

M/S Vajiram & Ravi Ias Study Centre LlpvsM/S Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against passing off. The dispute involved two coaching institutes, 'Vajiram & Ravi' and 'Vajirao & Reddy,' both using names rooted in proper nouns. Despite the plaintiff claiming prior use and phonetic similarity between 'VAJIRAM' and 'VAJIRAO', the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of confusion at this preliminary stage. The balance of convenience tilted in favor of the defendant, allowing them to continue operating under their mark pending final trial.

Amit JainvsVikas Gupta

The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)vsKarnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by KSRTC seeking rectification of trade mark entries held by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that despite KSRTC's claim of prior use dating back to 1965, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act due to 'other special circumstances.' Given both entities operate in the transportation sector and utilize distinct regional scripts (Malayalam vs. Telugu), the court ruled that peaceful coexistence is possible, thus upholding the existing registrations.

A.J. Von WulfingvsD.H. Jivandas And Co.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had established a high reputation for chemical compounds sold under the names 'Sanatogen' and 'Formamint' in India. They sued the defendants, who were importing and selling similar goods at lower rates, alleging deception through the use of the marks and resemblance in packaging. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to their trade mark rights and ruled that the defendants' sale constituted infringement/passing off.

M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V.vsM/s Pachala Murali Krishna

This Madras High Court case involves multiple rectification petitions filed by M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. against the registration of several 'MEDIA MONK' trademarks held by M/s Pachala Murali Krishna. The petitioner seeks to remove these marks, asserting its global reputation and prior use since 2001. Conversely, the respondent claims he coined and used the mark honestly in January 2009, preceding the petitioner's Indian application. The court has framed several key issues, including deceptive similarity, bad faith, and priority of adoption.