News & Blogs

McDonald’s and Supermac’s trademark dispute

McDonald’s loses ‘Big Mac’ TM Battle against Supermac’s

Background Supermac is a fast food chain based in Ireland, founded  by Pat Mc Donagh in 1978. It is Ireland’s largest indigenous quick service restaurant group. The company has been growing and operating more than 100 outlets across Ireland and Northern Ireland. Mc Donald’s, on the other hand, is an

Read More »
Involving Dabur Real fruit juice branding and misleading packaging claims.

THE BLURRED LINE: THE DHRUV RATHEE VS. DABUR CASE IN REVIEW

FACTS Mr. Dhruv Rathee, a social media influencer and YouTuber, faced a dispute with Dabur India Limited due to his use of a partially blurred logo of Real Fruit Juice in a promotional video comparing carbonated drinks and fruit beverages. Dabur filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, alleging

Read More »
Illustrating deceptive similarity and trademark infringement cosmetic product packaging inspired by Nivea Creme and Pond’s skincare branding.

NIVEA V. PONDS: DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING & TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Introduction Recently, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal gave the judgement in the case of Beiersdorf Ag (Plaintiff) versus Hindustan Unilever Limited (Defendant). The court looked closely at the rules and restrictions surrounding competitive advertising. The main claims in the

Read More »
BharatPe and PhonePe trademark dispute illustration

PhonePe V. BharatPe: Trademark Dispute

Introduction Recently, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Mr Justice C. Hari Shankar. The judgement dwells into the complexities of trademark law, weighing the need of maintaining a brand’s identity while still allowing for healthy market competition. It emphasizes the importance of a trademark’s distinctiveness

Read More »
comparison between Khandelwal Edible Oils and Landsmill Agro product packaging.

PROTECTING TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS: DELHI HIGH COURT’S RULING ON KHANDELWAL EDIBLE OILS LIMITED VS. LANDSMILL AGRO

INTRODUCTION  The Delhi High Court, in its recent ruling, marked a critical step in defending Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited’s (herein referred to as Plaintiff) intellectual property rights, by granting an interim injunction to them in their trademark and copyright infringement case against Landsmill Agro Private Limited (herein referred to as

Read More »
Post Categories
BharatPe and PhonePe trademark dispute illustration
All Posts
Praveen Agrawal

PhonePe V. BharatPe: Trademark Dispute

Introduction Recently, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Mr Justice C. Hari Shankar. The judgement dwells into the complexities of

Comparison image showing the branding dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest over similar brand identity and trademark elements.
All Posts
Praveen Agrawal

Trademark Dispute: Forest Essentials vs. Baby Forest Ayurveda Over Generic Terms

A detailed overview of the trademark dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda, highlighting the complexities of protecting generic terms in competitive markets. Learn about the Delhi High Court’s ruling, the arguments from both parties, and the implications for trademark law and brand identity.

Lotus Herbals skincare product branding and trademark dispute
All Posts
Swati Agrawal

LOTUS HERBAL V. DPKA: DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION ON TRADEMARK DISPUTE

Explore the legal battle between Lotus Herbal and DPKA over the trademark ‘Lotus Splash’ for a facewash product, as the Delhi High Court evaluates trademark infringement claims and weighs the protection under Section 30(2)(a) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, ultimately dismissing Lotus Herbal’s petition.

Post Categories

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I Agree” below, the user acknowledges the following:

  • There has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
  • The user wishes to gain more information about us for his/her own information and use;
  • The information about us is provided to the user only on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt or use of the information obtained from this website site would not create any lawyer-client relationship.

The information provided on this website is solely available at user’s own request for informational purposes only and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice.