M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v. M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP

M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private LimitedvsM/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai

The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.

Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. LtdvsThe Registrar of Trademarks; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises

The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd against The Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash a registered trademark 'OMBC' held by Respondent No. 2, arguing infringement or improper registration. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.

Sammaan Finserv LimitedvsSvamaan Financial Services Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.

Bennet, Coleman And Company LimitedvsFashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.

Amit SoodvsUnion Of India And Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Amit Sood, granting cancellation of the mark 'ROSHAN' (No. 1324435) registered by the respondents under Class 42. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the name since the 1960s, establishing extensive goodwill in the photography sector. This judgment underscores the principle that prior use and established reputation outweigh subsequent trademark registration when seeking cancellation.