Related Posts
IPR weekly Highlights (6)
TRADEMARK ADIDAS LOSES STRIPE TRADEMARK BATTLE TO LUXURY DESIGNER THOM BROWNE Adidas has lost a court case trying to stop…
20 Jan 2023
IPR weekly Highlights (12)
TRADEMARK DELHI HIGH COURT BANS MP-BASED LIQUOR COMPANY FROM USING MIRINDA MARK PepsiCo, the plaintiff, had filed a trademark infringement…
01 Jun 2023
Patent pundits
A career in intellectual property rights is fast gaining momentum as individuals realise the importance of ingenuity and the need to patent it. Anjana Mohan gives crucial insights.
30 Apr 2018
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (IN) & ANR v/S AMAZON INDIA LTD. & ANR
Court instructed Amazon to take down any listings (present and in the future) by unverified sellers on its platform that infringe the mark ‘ROOHAFZA’ which belongs to Hamdard National Foundation and Hamdard Dawakhana.
30 Nov 2022
IPR weekly Highlights (13)
TRADEMARK BODHISATVA CHARITABLE TRUST RESTRAINED FROM USING “MAYO” MARK Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, a subsidiary of the…
16 Jun 2023
IPR weekly Highlights (5)
TRADEMARK DELHI COURT GRANTS RELIEF TO BESTO CHEM IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE In the present case, the plaintiff is a…
24 Dec 2022
IPR weekly Highlights (3)
TRADEMARK Delhi High Court grants interim relief to Ultra Tech Cement In the present case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…
26 Nov 2022
IP Highlights (2021)
List of all the important news updates and legal development in the field of Intellectual Property in the year 2021.
04 Jan 2022
IPR weekly Highlights (4)
PERSONALITY RIGHTS AMITABH BACHCHAN V. RAJAT NAGI & ORS. In 2012 vide order Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers,…
13 Dec 2022
IPR weekly Highlights (8)
TRADEMARK GOOGLE’S WARNING DOES NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARK FOR THIRD-PARTY APK FILES The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed Winzo Games Private…
15 Mar 2023
IPR weekly Highlights (11)
TRADEMARK PREETENDRA SINGH AULAKH V/S GREEN LIGHT FOODS PVT. LTD: MERE ADDITION OF WORDS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISTINGUISH TWO MARKS…
12 May 2023
Copyright infringement case- Ed Sheeran vs Sami Switch “Chokri”
On 6 April 2022, Mr. Justice Antony Zacaroli – sitting in the High Court – delivered a judgment
(Sheeran v Chokri [2022] EWHC 827 (Ch)), declaring that Sheeran did not copy ‘Oh Why’. In this
piece, we are assessing the unusual case brought by Ed Sheeran against Sami Switch for
declaration of non-infringement of copyright.
21 Sep 2021
IPR weekly Highlights (7)
TRADEMARK DELHI HC DECIDES FAMOUS “ISMAIL BUILDING” TRADEMARK CASE The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that their…
30 Jan 2023
IPR weekly Highlights (9)
TRADEMARK KARIM HOTELS PVT. LTD. V/S KAREEM DHANANI The plaintiff, Karim Hotel Pvt. Ltd., filed a trademark infringement and passing…
11 Apr 2023
IPR weekly Highlights (2)
TRADEMARK NFTs reproducing a third party’s trademarks without authorization amount to trademark infringement The Italian soccer team Juventus F.C. initiated…
18 Nov 2022