Search Results for "identical name registration"

713 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 713 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Gujarat Hears Appeal Against Rejection of Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit. The Court Examines Whether Trial Court Erred in Denying Interim Protection Despite Registered Device Mark and Alleged Joint Use of the 'Kshetrapal' Mark.

The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'Shree Kshetrapal' / 'Kshetrapal Construction' by two individuals in the construction business in Guj...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Restrains Defendant from Using Similar Trademark in Instant Adhesive Case. Affirms Likelihood of Confusion Between 'FEVIKWIK' and 'KWIKHEAL' Based on Overall Similarity of Marks and Trade Dress.

The plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, a leading manufacturer of adhesives and sealants, filed a suit against Poma-Ex Products and others for tra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Defendant for Trademark Infringement and Passing Off of Identical Mark SPASGAN in Pharmaceutical Preparations. Plaintiff's Registered Trademark SPASGAN Entitled to Protection Under Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Plaintiff, Wockhardt Limited, filed a suit against Eden Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. seeking to prevent infringement and passing off of its trademark SPAS...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case: 'ROFOL' vs 'PROFOL'. Prior Registration of 'ROFOL' by Plaintiff in 1992 Entitles Injunction Against Defendant's Deceptively Similar Mark 'PROFOL' Under Section 29 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

The plaintiff, M/s. Neon Laboratories Limited, filed a suit for infringement and passing off against the defendants, M/s. Medical Technologies Ltd. an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Amendment in Commercial IP Suit Due to Delay and Lack of Due Diligence. Amendment After Commencement of Trial Not Allowed Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as Plaintiffs Failed to Show They Could Not Have Raised the Matter Earlier.

The present Interim Application No. 752 of 2024 was filed by the original plaintiffs, Ramnish Verma and Finesse Fashions Pvt. Ltd., in a pending Comme...