Radico Khaitan Limited ("Radico") claim rejected by Delhi High Court

Radico Khaitan Limited (“Radico”) claim rejected by Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court rejected Radico Khaitan Limited (“Radico”) claim for exclusivity over the numeral “8” under its registered trademark “8 PM”. The Court held that prima facie there exists no actionable similarity between Radico trademark “8 PM” (for whiskey) and Carlsberg India Private Limited trademark “PALONE 8” (for beer) and mere similarity in the manner […]

Appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal dismissed  by The Supreme Court of India

Appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal dismissed by The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (appellants) that raises questions of legality of an ex parte decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court held that appellants do not have right to use the […]

Appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal dismissed by The Supreme Court of India

Appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal dismissed by The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (appellants) that raises questions of legality of an ex parte decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court held that appellants do not have right to use the […]

Delhi High Court restrained usage of the business name ‘Tata Diamonds’

Delhi High Court restrained usage of the business name ‘Tata Diamonds’

Considering ‘TATA’ a well-known trademark in addition to being registered, Delhi High Court restrained (i) the defendant from using the business name ‘Tata Diamonds’ or any other business name; (ii) the defendant from using the domain name www.tatadiamonds.com or any other web name; which would constitute infringement of the trademark ‘TATA’.

Considering ‘TATA’ a well-known trademark in addition to being registered, Delhi High Court restrained (i) the defendant from using the business name ‘Tata Diamonds’ or any other business name; (ii) the defendant from using the domain name www.tatadiamonds.com or any other web name; which would constitute infringement of the trademark ‘TATA’.