Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.

Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt LtdvsCiti Group Inc & Anr

This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.

Merck KgaavsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

Merck Kgaa appealed an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its trade mark 'CANDISTAT'. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant could be granted sufficient time to file necessary evidence in support of its opposition, despite procedural delays. The IPAB set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that opportunity must be granted to the applicant.

Facebook Inc.vsSurinder Malik & Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.

Sarvasuddi SuryanarayanavsThe Union Of India

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.

D. BaskaranvsThe Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks & The Registrar of Trade Marks

This Madras High Court judgment addressed a dispute over the lapsed registration of the 'TAJMAHAL' trade mark. The petitioner sought directions to compel the Trade Mark Registry to accept his renewal application, which had been refused due to the lapse of time. The court ruled that mere expiration is insufficient for removal; the statutory procedure, specifically issuing Form O-3 notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, must be followed scrupulously before a mark can be removed from the register.