PepsiCo, Inc. v. Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

Canara BankvsN.G. Subbaraya Setty

This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute involving Canara Bank and N.G. Subbaraya Setty concerning the use of the trademark 'Eenadu'. The core legal questions revolved around whether the bank's actions, such as selling agarbathies using the trademark, violated the Banking Regulation Act. Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of res judicata when a prior judgment was based on an assignment deed that was prohibited by law under the Trade Marks Act.

Belle Wears Private LimitedvsHobby Garments Private Limited

The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.

Panchhi Petha StorevsUnion Of India & Ors

The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.

Jaskaran SinghvsFlipkart Internet Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.

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'.