Trademark Case Study
The Bombay High Court didn’t rubber-stamp a Section 11(1) refusal just because WR appears inside WR-V. It set aside a cryptic rejection and told the
15/09/2025
The Bombay High Court didn’t rubber-stamp a Section 11(1) refusal just because WR appears inside WR-V. It set aside a cryptic rejection and told the
The Bombay High Court restrained “Cocoplus” hair oils from using look-alike blue bottles, labels, and overall get-up that mimic Marico’s iconic Parachute range. The Court
A Pune trial court dismissed Burger King Corporation’s infringement suit in July 2024 after finding the trademark prior rights and use of local “Burger King”
When a rival’s pack “looks like yours at first glance,” courts act fast but only if your evidence is surgical. Below is a Day-1 evidence
A “descriptive use” defence under Section 30(2)(a) crumbles when your own pack and marketing present the term like a brand. Bombay High Court decisions from
In Everest Food Products v. Shyam Dhani Industries (Bombay HC, 2 Jan 2025), the Court restrains use of “Tikha Lal” for chilli powder, rejects the
In trademark cases, bad-faith adoption and obvious confusion can trump a defendant’s “you slept on your rights” argument. The Bombay High Court’s Parachute v. Cocoplus
