Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v. Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited

T.V.NagarajanvsThe Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd.vsTrustbanq Reality Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., who holds the registered trademark 'BELLEVUE' for luxury apartments. The court found that the Defendants were using a confusingly similar mark, 'BELLE VUE', for their real estate projects. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from launching any new projects under this name and faced restrictions on executing new sale deeds in existing projects.

M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd.vsMr.Sh.S.Lal Singh

In this appeal before the Madras High Court, M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss an opposition based on the finding that 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' were different marks. The court noted evidence of prior use by Goldmedal's predecessor since 1987, and crucially, referenced a separate Civil Court decree confirming the deceptive similarity between the two trademarks. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the Registry's finding of difference would not be binding on the appellant in future proceedings related to these marks.

Amara Raja Energy And Mobility LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.

Vinit DuavsPrashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.