respondent

‘LETROZ’ & ‘LETERO’ medicine are not similar as they derive from same generic drug named as ‘LETEROZOLE’, Delhi High Court.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 28, 2023 No Comments

In the matter of :- SUN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD. ….. Appellant Versus HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD. & ANR. ….. Respondents Date of Order:- 26.08.2022 APPEAL BEFORE DOUBLE BENCH OF HON’BLE DELHI…

act advocate affidavit applicant application brand complaint court delhi Delhi High Court delhihighcourt directions hearing judgment law lawyer legal lexeagle online order petitoner plaintiff Registrar respondent services trademark

Directions issued by Delhi High Court for proper Mechanism to conduct, online hearing at Trademark office.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 26, 2023 No Comments

In the matter of :- PAWANDEEP SINGH ….. Petitioner Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. ….. Respondents Date of order:-23.03.2022 Writ filed by applicant of trademark,as his trademark application…

acronym advertisement advocate application book confusingly consumer copyright court decree defendant delhi delhihighcourt evidence goods high court infringement injunction Intellectual Property judgment law lawyer legal lexeagle logo order passing off petitoner plaintiff Registrar respondent services similar trademark website

“HARPIC DRAINXPERT” trademark is not confusingly similar to “XPERT” trademark and consumer are not likely to be confused with both marks, Delhi High Court.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 18, 2023 No Comments

M/S.RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Versus RECKITT AND COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME LIMITED & ANR. ….. Respondents Date of Order:- 22.08.2023 HARPIC DRAINXPERT VERSUS XPERT There were two rectification…

advertisement advocate application bombay complaint copyright court decree delhi evidence goodwill high court infringement injunction Intellectual Property judgment law lawyer legal lexeagle logo media passing off plaintiff respondent sales search supreme court

Supreme Court on passing off, acquiescence and cross examination.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 17, 2023 No Comments

In the matter of :- Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited …..Appellants versus Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ………Respondents Date of Order:-04.09.2023 STORY LINE:- The appellant–plaintiff was engaged in…

advocate affidavit application assessment assets brand copyright court defendant delhi delhihighcourt evidence high court Income tax Intellectual Property judgment law lawyer legal lexeagle logo media order petitoner respondent services tax trademark

Brand Names are intangible assets and can be depreciated under Income tax Act.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 13, 2023 No Comments

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH ….. Appellant Versus M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD. ….. Respondent Date of Order:- 16.08.2023 This was an Income Tax appeal concerning Assessment Year (AY)…

advocate affidavit application brand copyright court decree defendant delhi delhihighcourt directions domain evidence gogia goods high court injunction Intellectual Property judgment law lawyer legal lexeagle logo media order plaintiff Registrar respondent services similar trademark website well known mark

Documentary Evidence is enough to declare a trademark as a well known mark, affidavit is not mandatory, Delhi High Court.

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 11, 2023 No Comments

KAMDHENU LTD ….. Appellant Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS ….. Respondent Date of the Order:- 06.07.2023 APPELLANT STORY:- The Appellant’s story is that appellant is a company, incorporated as…

advocate brand complaint copyright court defendant delhi delhihighcourt domain fake gogia high court infringement Intellectual Property intelligence law lawyer legal lexeagle logo order petitoner plaintiff respondent trademark

Use of registered trademark is an important factor, injunction vacated by Karnataka High Court

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 5, 2023 No Comments

BLINK COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED …..APPELLANT Versus BLINKHIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR ..…RESPONDENTS Date of order:- 17.04.2023 What is the case about:- This is an Appeal by Blink Commerce Private Limited…

advocate complaint copyright court defendant delhi delhihighcourt directions fake garments high court infringement Intellectual Property law lawyer legal lexeagle Madras order petitoner respondent

Sec 63 of Copyright Act does not apply to counterfeit garments etc, Madras High Court

Neeraj Gogia, Advocate October 3, 2023 No Comments

Chain Singh & Sujan Singh ….Petitioners Versus State & anr. …..Respondent Date of Order:- 07.06.2023 Reason for Filing Petition The petition was filed in Hon’ble Madras High Court , to…

‘LETROZ’ & ‘LETERO’ medicine are not similar as they derive from same generic drug named as ‘LETEROZOLE’, Delhi High Court.

Directions issued by Delhi High Court for proper Mechanism to conduct, online hearing at Trademark office.

“HARPIC DRAINXPERT” trademark is not confusingly similar to “XPERT” trademark and consumer are not likely to be confused with both marks, Delhi High Court.

Supreme Court on passing off, acquiescence and cross examination.

Brand Names are intangible assets and can be depreciated under Income tax Act.

Use of registered trademark is an important factor, injunction vacated by Karnataka High Court

Sec 63 of Copyright Act does not apply to counterfeit garments etc, Madras High Court

You Missed

In a Marriage dispute, names of family members cannot be included when no active involvement is proved , High Court of Karnataka

Delhi High Court refunded full court fees in out of court settlement by parties in a trademark infringement matter.

‘London Pride’ trademark is not similar to ‘Blenders Pride’ trademark, as the word ‘Pride’ is of common usage.

THE SAGA OF SEVEN TRADEMARKS