Mr.T.Chitty Babu v. M/S.Sakthivel Builders

Hotel PanchavativsHotel Panchawati

The Plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the Defendants alleging infringement of their well-known PANCHVATI trademarks in the hospitality sector. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and domain names.

Adret Retail Private LimitedvsAbhinandan Industries & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.

Lt Foods LimitedvsDawat Biryani & Anr.

The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Lt Foods Limited and Dawat Biryani & Anr. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court mediation. The defendants acknowledged Lt Foods as the proprietor of the well-known 'DAWAT' trademark and committed not to use any deceptively similar marks, such as 'Dawat Biryani,' in a manner that suggests affiliation or causes infringement or passing off. This resolution provides clear legal certainty regarding the protection of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.

M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios LlpvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.

PepsiCo, Inc.vsParle Agro Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.