KFC has filed a lawsuit against Nashville Fried Chicken in the Delhi High Court, claiming that the sale of similar products could mislead the public into believing that the two brands are connected. New Delhi: Fast food giant Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has filed a petition with the Delhi High Court challenging Massive Restaurants Private […]
The Supreme Court temporarily allowed a Pune-based restaurant to continue using the ‘Burger King’ name. The dispute involves US-based Burger King Corporation, which entered India in 2014. However, the Pune eatery has been operating under the same name since 2008. The case raises legal questions about trademark rights and prior usage in India.
Today, On 13th February, The Delhi High Court issued stay Adyar Gate from using the ‘Dakshin’ name after ITC filed a lawsuit. ITC claimed exclusive rights over the mark and objected to Adyar Gate’s new restaurant in Chennai’s Alwarpet. The court’s order prevents the restaurant from operating under the disputed name. This ruling highlights the importance of trademark protection in business disputes.
Today, On 7th February, The Delhi High Court prohibited the unauthorized use of Ratan Tata’s name, picture, and the Tata logo for an award event. The court is also evaluating whether ‘Ratan Tata’ qualifies as a well-known trademark due to his widespread recognition. This decision reinforces legal protections against misusing prominent personalities’ identities. The case highlights the growing importance of trademark rights in protecting individual and brand reputations.
The Madras High Court dismissed PhonePe’s trademark case against BundlePe, ruling that “Pe” is not a unique or exclusive element. The court stated that “Pe” is a commonly used term in the payment industry and its use by BundlePe does not amount to trademark infringement. The judgment emphasized that Rule 28 of the Trademark Rules allows Hindi-English transliteration, making “Pe” a legitimate representation of “Pay.” This ruling is a big blow to PhonePe’s exclusivity claims and a win for open competition in digital payments.
The Bombay High Court will hear Macrotech Developers’ trademark infringement case against Abhinandan Lodha on January 27, 2023. Macrotech claims exclusive rights to the “Lodha” name, a position reinforced by a 2017 Family Settlement Agreement. The outcome could significantly impact the Lodha brothers’ businesses and the real estate sector.
Today, On 10th January, The Delhi High Court is heared a case where Capital Foods, a Tata-owned company, has taken Dabur to court over the use of the name ‘Schezwan Chutney.’ The issue began after Dabur launched a product with the same name in 2024. Capital Foods argues that it has trademark rights to the term because of its popular Ching’s Secret brand. This case highlights the increasing competition in India’s condiments market.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court stayed a single-judge’s decision to impose a Rs 4.5 crore penalty on Patanjali Ayurved in a trademark infringement case. The costs were levied on Patanjali by a single Bench of Justice RI Chagla in July this year for violating an interim order that prohibited the company from selling camphor products that allegedly infringed on the trademark of Mangalam Organics. Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil today stayed the single-judge orders of July 8 and July 29, but allowed the Rs 50 lakhs already deposited by Patanjali to remain with the Court.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (Oct 29) ordered auctioning of the Fortis trademark in connection with the Rs 3,500 crore arbitral award passed in favour of Japanese pharma major Daiichi Sankyo and against the former Ranbaxy promoters. Justice Sachin Datta passed the order on an application filed by Daiichi Sankyo seeking the sale of the Fortis trademark, owned by RHC Healthcare Management Services Pvt Ltd which is one of the judgment debtors in the matter.
Today, On 18th October, the Chief Justice of India refused to intervene in a trademark dispute regarding the movie “Jigra.” The court concluded that legal action was unwarranted since the film is in the public domain. The case illustrates complexities in trademark law between different sectors, especially education and entertainment.