When the Trade Marks Registry refused “PAKODA POINT” under Sections 9(1)(a) and (b), it looked only at the word mark and ignored the device and tagline that formed the composite mark. The Madras High Court set the refusal aside, reaffirming the settled anti-dissection rule, a composite mark must be assessed as a whole, never by breaking it into its component parts.
A Coimbatore entrepreneur filed for “RAW SKINN” in Class 3 for soaps, body butter, and scrubs. The Registrar refused under Section 9(1)(b), calling it descriptive. The Madras High Court set the order aside, holding the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive — and that the Registrar had failed to engage with the applicant’s arguments at all.
An ad-interim injunction is a start, not a finish. To turn a Day-1 win into a decree, treat the order like a project: lock undertakings,
Bombay High Court (IPD) stopped a Mumbai restaurant from trading as “Social Tribe” because it wholly adopted the registered mark SOCIAL, offered identical services in
The Bombay High Court didn’t stop at an injunction against “PRINCE PLATINUM.” Seeing blatant piracy and market harm, it also appointed a Court Receiver to
Losing an interim injunction at first instance isn’t the end. If you can show serious triable issues and target the trial court’s errors of principle,
A Section 11(1) objection isn’t a dead end. If you can show market separation, distinct channels, consumer sophistication, and – critically peaceful co-existence (in India
The Bombay High Court restrained a rival from using “Tikha Lal” for chilli powder and imposed ₹2 lakh in costs after finding (i) the label
The Bombay High Court told the Trade Marks Registry to stop dissecting a composite/device mark into bits, and to judge it as a whole. In
Peaceful global co-existence and long, well-documented foreign use can unlock two powerful levers when Examiners raise Section 11 objections: (1) ask for “advertisement before acceptance”
