Trade marks: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Alumni can't use school’s name */

2025-12-03T11:32:14Z

‎Alumni can't use school’s name

Jyoti: /* India: 2015-24 */

2025-06-05T04:45:51Z

‎India: 2015-24

Jyoti: /* Court rulings */

2025-06-05T04:44:08Z

‎Court rulings

Pdewan: /* Rothan Tata’s name */

2025-05-17T13:23:36Z

‎Rothan Tata’s name

Jyoti: /* The ‘territoriality principle’ */

2025-03-25T20:25:00Z

‎The ‘territoriality principle’

Jyoti: /* Alumni can't use school’s name */

2018-09-05T11:07:50Z

‎Alumni can't use school’s name

Jyoti: /* Phonetically similar brand names */

2017-12-20T17:04:11Z

‎Phonetically similar brand names

Pdewan: /* Phonetically similar brand names */

2017-12-19T19:12:44Z

‎Phonetically similar brand names

Pdewan: /* Alumni can't use school’s name */

2017-12-19T19:12:17Z

‎Alumni can't use school’s name

Jyoti: /* Phonetically similar brand names */

2017-04-06T09:38:45Z

‎Phonetically similar brand names

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 3 December 2025
Line 88:		Line 88:

	HC relief came on a plea by DPS World against a single judge’s order restraining them from using the DPS trademark and its crests. DPS World had challenged the single judge’s April 18, 2016, interim order restraining the foundation, schools floated by a group of DPS alumni, from using the name ‘DPS’ saying it would amount to trademark infringement.		HC relief came on a plea by DPS World against a single judge’s order restraining them from using the DPS trademark and its crests. DPS World had challenged the single judge’s April 18, 2016, interim order restraining the foundation, schools floated by a group of DPS alumni, from using the name ‘DPS’ saying it would amount to trademark infringement.
		+
		+	=Olfactory trademarks=
		+	==Sumitomo Rubber. 2025==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=27_11_2025_017_014_cap_TOI Nov 27, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	New Delhi : In a landmark shift for intellectual property, India has accepted the world’s first scientifically represented olfactory trademark — a rose-like fragrance embedded in tyres by Japan’s Sumitomo Rubber.
		+
		+	The decision revolutionises non-traditional intellectual property protection, setting a new benchmark and paves the way for innovative branding among consumer firms, say industry experts. Typically, non-traditional trademarks protect products or services that are not purely visual or verbal.
		+
		+	Further, the decision broadens the trademark regime in India, allowing brands to differentiate themselves not just through logos and jingles, but now through signature fragrances.  The application, filed by Sumitomo Rubber in 2023, sought protection for a roselike floral fragrance applied to tyres. India has overtaken developed nations and set a new global gold standard with the graphic representation of protecting scents as trademarks. “The graphical representation of smell marks is first time captured in deciding the olfactory trademarks. This is a fusion of science and law to raise the standards for more authentic decisions than mere statements,’’ Unnat P Pandit, controller general of patents, designs and trade marks, told TOI.
		+
		+	“The trade mark in question satisfies the criteria laid down for registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it is clear, precise, self-contained, intelligible, objective and is represented graphically,’’ Pandit added.
		+
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|TRADE MARKS: INDIA
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]

	=Phonetically similar brand names=		=Phonetically similar brand names=

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 '''See graphic''':
-'' Indian trademark application filing volume by year from 2015 to 2024 '''
+'' Indian trademark application filing volume by year from 2015 to 2024 ''
 The same caption as in ''The Times of India'' 's h2    Indian trademark filing….
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:India|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
 =See also=

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
  In the suit, the company and trust have also sought damages of over Rs 2 crore for causing harm to their reputation and goodwill.
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|T
+=B=
-TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
+=STATISTICS=
-[[Category:India|T
+=Trademark filings=
-TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
+==India vis-à-vis the world==
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T
+===2024===
-TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=17_05_2025_021_015_cap_TOI Rupali Mukherjee, May 17, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|T TRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|T TRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:India|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T TRADE MARKS: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T TRADE MARKS: INDIATRADE MARKS: INDIA
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 =Court rulings=
-==Rothan Tata’s name==
+==Ratan Tata’s name==
 [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=11_02_2025_013_012_cap_TOI  Abhinav Garg, February 11, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
  Dealing with a suit filed by the Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust, HC observed last week it is “manifest that the name of Late Shri Ratan Tata is a well-known personal name/mark, which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party”, and restrained a journalist from using the name “Ratan Tata National Icon Award” or using “Tata” and “Tata Trusts” trademarks for an event organised by him.
- Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after one Rajat Srivastava, founder of an outlet called Delhi To- day Group, agreed not to use Ratan Tata’s name and refrain from proceeding with the event in the same name.
+Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after one Rajat Srivastava, founder of an outlet called Delhi To- day Group, agreed not to use Ratan Tata’s name and refrain from proceeding with the event in the same name.
- HC pointed out that Srivastava’s actions clearly show he intentionally put up posts which wrongly claim association with the plaintiff and misuse his name by unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs’ registered marks. In its prima facie observations, HC said Srivastava’s actions are in bad faith and “egregious infringement of plaintiffs’ statutory and legal rights, in order to have afree ride on the tremendous goodwill of the plaintiffs and that of the late Ratan Tata, with a view to benefitting from and gaining publicity out of the late Tata’s distinct and widely regarded personality and public persona”.
+HC pointed out that Srivastava’s actions clearly show he intentionally put up posts which wrongly claim association with the plaintiff and misuse his name by unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs’ registered marks. In its prima facie observations, HC said Srivastava’s actions are in bad faith and “egregious infringement of plaintiffs’ statutory and legal rights, in order to have afree ride on the tremendous goodwill of the plaintiffs and that of the late Ratan Tata, with a view to benefitting from and gaining publicity out of the late Tata’s distinct and widely regarded personality and public persona”.
  In the suit, the company and trust have also sought damages of over Rs 2 crore for causing harm to their reputation and goodwill.
@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|T
 TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 25 March 2025
Line 140:		Line 140:

	Agreeing with the HC, the bench said, "The brand name of the car Prius had not acquired the degree of goodwill, reputation and the market or popularity in the Indian market so as to get Toyota the necessary attributes of the right of a prior user so as to successfully maintain an action of passing off even against registered owner (Prius Auto Industries)."		Agreeing with the HC, the bench said, "The brand name of the car Prius had not acquired the degree of goodwill, reputation and the market or popularity in the Indian market so as to get Toyota the necessary attributes of the right of a prior user so as to successfully maintain an action of passing off even against registered owner (Prius Auto Industries)."
		+
		+	=Court rulings=
		+	==Rothan Tata’s name==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=11_02_2025_013_012_cap_TOI Abhinav Garg, February 11, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : Acknowledging that Ratan Tata is a wellknown figure whose trademark deserves protection, Delhi high court has restrained a third party from unauthorised use of the late industrialist’s name.
		+
		+	Dealing with a suit filed by the Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust, HC observed last week it is “manifest that the name of Late Shri Ratan Tata is a well-known personal name/mark, which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party”, and restrained a journalist from using the name “Ratan Tata National Icon Award” or using “Tata” and “Tata Trusts” trademarks for an event organised by him.
		+
		+	Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after one Rajat Srivastava, founder of an outlet called Delhi To- day Group, agreed not to use Ratan Tata’s name and refrain from proceeding with the event in the same name.
		+
		+	HC pointed out that Srivastava’s actions clearly show he intentionally put up posts which wrongly claim association with the plaintiff and misuse his name by unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs’ registered marks. In its prima facie observations, HC said Srivastava’s actions are in bad faith and “egregious infringement of plaintiffs’ statutory and legal rights, in order to have afree ride on the tremendous goodwill of the plaintiffs and that of the late Ratan Tata, with a view to benefitting from and gaining publicity out of the late Tata’s distinct and widely regarded personality and public persona”.
		+	In the suit, the company and trust have also sought damages of over Rs 2 crore for causing harm to their reputation and goodwill.
		+
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|T
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|T
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|T
		+	TRADE MARKS: INDIA]]

	=See also=		=See also=

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 =Alumni can't use school’s name=
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=TRADEMARK-DPS-alumni-schools-cant-use-name-HC-19042016006032 ''The Times of India''], Apr 19 2016
@@ Line 72: / Line 73: @@
 The society learnt in 2015 that DPS World Foundation had launched schools using the name and a deceptively similar logo that is also reflected on its website, said its lawyers, Sandeep Sethi and Puneet Mittal. Seeking permanent injunction, the society said the public was being misled that DPS World Foundation had a connection or even a nexus with Delhi Public School.
 =Phonetically similar brand names=

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 20 December 2017
Line 92:		Line 92:

	Justice Patel said, “Is a court to ignore all these only because of a phonetic similarity? No law says that all this must be ignored, or that a solitary test of pronunciation will suffice to defeat all else that weighs against.“		Justice Patel said, “Is a court to ignore all these only because of a phonetic similarity? No law says that all this must be ignored, or that a solitary test of pronunciation will suffice to defeat all else that weighs against.“
		+
		+	=The ‘territoriality principle’=
		+	==The SC and Toyota’s ‘Prius’==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/sc-rejects-toyota-plea-for-prius-trademark/articleshow/62127176.cms Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC rejects Toyota plea for ‘Prius’ trademark, December 19, 2017: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	'''HIGHLIGHTS'''
		+
		+	Japanese automobile major Toyota lost a legal battle in the Supreme Court for exclusive trademark rights over ‘Prius’
		+
		+	A Delhi-based auto parts maker had the permission to use the ‘Prius’ trademark
		+
		+	Toyota's hybrid car 'Prius' was launched in India in 2010
		+
		+
		+	Japanese automobile major Toyota lost a legal battle in the Supreme Court for exclusive trademark rights over 'Prius', the name under which it had launched its first mass produced hybrid car in Japan in 1997 and in the UK, Australia and the US in 2000-2001.
		+
		+	The main reason for Toyota losing exclusive use of the 'Prius' trademark in India was the late launch in the country, in 2010. It found that an auto spare parts maker, Prius Auto Industries, had been using the name 'Prius' as well as 'Toyota', 'Toyota Innova' and 'Toyota Device' for automobile parts it manufactured and supplied to the car manufacturing giant.
		+
		+	After several rounds of litigation in court, which Toyota had moved to protect its trademarks, the auto parts maker was restrained from using the name 'Toyota', 'Toyota Innova' and 'Toyota Devices'. However, the Delhi-based auto parts maker was permitted to use the 'Prius' trademark.
		+
		+	Toyota moved the SC seeking to restrain the auto parts manufacturer from using the name 'Prius' and said it had obtained trademark registration of 'Prius' in Japan in 1990 and eventually in other countries. However, since the hybrid car was launched in India in 2010, Toyota had not registered the 'Prius' trademark in India till then.
		+
		+	This delay in seeking cancellation of the 'Prius' trademark, registered by Prius Auto Industries in 2002 for all types of auto spare parts and accessories, played a vital role in Toyota losing the legal battle in the SC.
		+
		+	A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha applied the 'territoriality principle' governing the field of trademarks and ruled that for a global brand to claim exclusive use of a trademark or brand name in India, it must be able to prove that the name had acquired substantial popularity in the Indian market when it got registered by another person or company.
		+
		+	The bench said information available on the internet on use of 'Prius' trademark by Toyota and a lone mention of the world launch of its hybrid car in February-March 1997 in Economic Times "do not firmly establish the acquisition of goodwill and reputation of the brand name in the Indian market" as advertisements about 'Prius' in India were virtually absent prior to April 2001.
		+
		+	Writing the judgment, Justice Gogoi said, "This would show either lack of goodwill in the domestic market or lack of knowledge and information of the product among a significant section of Indian population. Even proof of knowledge about Prius with that section of small population, which kept domain knowledge about automobiles, is not prominent."
		+
		+	Agreeing with the HC, the bench said, "The brand name of the car Prius had not acquired the degree of goodwill, reputation and the market or popularity in the Indian market so as to get Toyota the necessary attributes of the right of a prior user so as to successfully maintain an action of passing off even against registered owner (Prius Auto Industries)."

	=See also=		=See also=

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 19 December 2017
Line 53:		Line 53:
	- Yahoo -(Human voice yodelling Yahoo)		- Yahoo -(Human voice yodelling Yahoo)

		+
		+	=Alumni can't use school’s name=
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=TRADEMARK-DPS-alumni-schools-cant-use-name-HC-19042016006032 ''The Times of India''], Apr 19 2016
		+
		+	''' DPS alumni schools can't use name: HC '''
		+
		+	Abhinav Garg
		+
		+	The Delhi high court restrained a franchisee of schools floated by a group of Delhi Public School alumni, including former Union minister Salman Khurshid, from using “DPS“ on the ground of trademark infringement and copyright violations.
		+
		+	Justice V K Rao directed DPS World Foundation to drop the word from its operations and al so barred any of its agents, trustees, members, employees, franchisees, assignees etc from using the word claimed by Delhi Public School Society .
		+
		+	DPS World Foundation is headed by Louise Khurshid, wife of Salman who himself is a life trustee along with other wellknown people such as Montek Singh Ahluwalia. It runs schools in several cities, including Greater Noida, Patna and Pune.
		+
		+	In a detailed order, Justice Rao held that the recently launched initiative had infringed on the right of DPS Society and they couldn't claim that by virtue of being “DiPSites“, the word could be relaunched in a new mode.
		+
		+	The order came on a suit filed by DPS Society accusing the foundation of trademark violation by using the DPS acro nymn in schools affiliated to the latter's trust.
		+
		+	The society learnt in 2015 that DPS World Foundation had launched schools using the name and a deceptively similar logo that is also reflected on its website, said its lawyers, Sandeep Sethi and Puneet Mittal. Seeking permanent injunction, the society said the public was being misled that DPS World Foundation had a connection or even a nexus with Delhi Public School.

	=Phonetically similar brand names=		=Phonetically similar brand names=

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 19 December 2017
Line 73:		Line 73:

	Justice Patel said, “Is a court to ignore all these only because of a phonetic similarity? No law says that all this must be ignored, or that a solitary test of pronunciation will suffice to defeat all else that weighs against.“		Justice Patel said, “Is a court to ignore all these only because of a phonetic similarity? No law says that all this must be ignored, or that a solitary test of pronunciation will suffice to defeat all else that weighs against.“
−
−	~~=Alumni can't use school’s name=~~
−	~~[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=TRADEMARK-DPS-alumni-schools-cant-use-name-HC-19042016006032 ''The Times of India''], Apr 19 2016~~
−
−	~~''' DPS alumni schools can't use name: HC '''~~
−
−	~~Abhinav Garg~~
−
−	The Delhi high court restrained a franchisee of schools floated by a group of Delhi Public School alumni, including former Union minister Salman Khurshid, from using “DPS“ on the ground of trademark infringement and copyright violations.
−
−	Justice V K Rao directed DPS World Foundation to drop the word from its operations and al so barred any of its agents, trustees, members, employees, franchisees, assignees etc from using the word claimed by Delhi Public School Society .
−
−	DPS World Foundation is headed by Louise Khurshid, wife of Salman who himself is a life trustee along with other wellknown people such as Montek Singh Ahluwalia. It runs schools in several cities, including Greater Noida, Patna and Pune.
−
−	In a detailed order, Justice Rao held that the recently launched initiative had infringed on the right of DPS Society and they couldn't claim that by virtue of being “DiPSites“, the word could be relaunched in a new mode.
−
−	~~The order came on a suit filed by DPS Society accusing the foundation of trademark violation by using the DPS acro nymn in schools affiliated to the latter's trust.~~
−
−	The society learnt in 2015 that DPS World Foundation had launched schools using the name and a deceptively similar logo that is also reflected on its website, said its lawyers, Sandeep Sethi and Puneet Mittal. Seeking permanent injunction, the society said the public was being misled that DPS World Foundation had a connection or even a nexus with Delhi Public School.

	=See also=		=See also=

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 [[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources |T ]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |T ]]
 =Phonetically similar brand names=