NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday (13th Jan) refused to grant an interim injunction to Gensol Electric Vehicles, which had sought to stop Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited from selling its newly launched electric vehicle (EV), ‘eZEO.’
![[IndiGo Vs Mahindra] Mahindra Restrain Not To Use '6E' Mark Till Disposal Of IndiGo Suit: Delhi HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-13.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
IndiGo is asserting its “6E” trademark rights against Mahindra Electric, which agreed to rename its upcoming electric vehicle from “BE 6E” to “BE 6” amid the legal dispute. Mahindra plans to contest the lawsuit while the court has scheduled a hearing for April 2025, highlighting the significance of trademark usage over mere registration.
![[Trademark Suit] Bombay HC Issues Interim Order, Temporarily Stays Pune Eatery from Using 'Burger King' Name](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Trademark-Dispute-Bombay-HC-Grants-Interim-Relief-to-Burger-King-in-Case-Against-Pune-Eatery.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
On November 2, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order preventing a Pune eatery from using the name “Burger King” amid a trademark infringement lawsuit by the US-based Burger King Corporation. The court emphasized a thorough examination of the appeal, while the Pune eatery’s prior use of the name complicates the case.
The Bombay High Court granted ex parte relief to Skechers in a trademark infringement case against counterfeit goods sold by defendants. The court recognized the defendants’ actions as dishonest and emphasized the need to protect Skechers’ brand and consumer interests. The ruling highlights the significance of safeguarding intellectual property in the footwear industry.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Skechers in a trademark infringement case, prohibiting counterfeiters from using its trademark. Skechers conducted raids with police support, seizing around 2,500 counterfeit items across multiple locations. The court emphasized the urgency of protecting Skechers’ brand integrity and intellectual property rights during ongoing litigation.
![[Trademark Infringement] Bombay HC Imposed Rs 4.5 Crore Penalty On Patanjali](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-9-4.png?resize=447%2C360&ssl=1)
The Bombay High Court today imposed a Rs 4.5 crore penalty on Patanjali Ayurved for violating an ad-interim order that prohibited the sale of its camphor products. The decision came in a trademark infringement case where Patanjali was accused of passing off and trademark infringement. Patanjali admitted to the violation and was directed to pay an additional Rs 4 crore.
The Delhi High Court has requested Shree Vallabh Metals’ counsel to explore potential resolution of the suit, considering the defendant’s readiness to accept a permanent injunction against manufacturing products under the “MAX FRESH” mark. However, the defendant seeks the plaintiff’s abandonment of claims for damages and costs.
The Supreme Court rejected PhonePe’s trademark infringement claim against DigiPe, emphasizing the complexities of trademark disputes in fintech. PhonePe argued that DigiPe’s name could confuse consumers, but the court noted the widespread use of “Pe.” The decision highlights the need for distinct branding and evidence in trademark disputes in the digital payments industry.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction against Wow Punjabi, following a trademark infringement claim by Wow! Momo. Justice Anish Dayal acknowledged Wow! Momo’s prima facie case, citing potential irreparable harm and balance of convenience. The decision requires Wow Punjabi to cease usage of the disputed trademark until further legal proceedings.
