Patola Industries v. Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors

M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P.vsM/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.

Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export CorporationvsAmilal Ramkrishnan Dass

This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.

Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh ShahvsSuresh Kumar Garg And Ors

The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd.vsRichworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.

ATC IP LLC & Anr.vsOwner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.