Also Read: Meta aims to address human rights impact amid Rohingya genocide row
On the wrong side of rights
A bump in the road
DMW vs BMW
The Delhi High Court in 2020 granted an interim injunction restraining an e-rickshaw manufacturer from using the mark ‘DMW’, in a trademark infringement action by luxury car manufacturer BMW.
No tasty treats
Britannia Industries vs Future GroupBritannia Industries filed a case against Future Group in 2020 claiming that the Kishore Biyani-led company had copied the packaging of several of its popular biscuit brands. Britannia alleged that Future Consumer's packaging for some of its Tasty Treat brand of biscuits was deceptively similar to Britannia's biscuit packs. Both parties agreed to an out-of-court settlement.
The plaintiff sold cosmetic products under the Lakme trademark and the defendant used the LikeMe trademark for the same class of products. It was held that there was a resemblance between the two words and that the words were also phonetically similar.
The plaintiff was involved in the production and sale of species and condiments sold under the MDH logo on a red background of three hexagons. The defendant used the “MHS” logo in a red background hexagonal device. Both marks were found to be similar and likely to cause confusion and deception. MDH also requested an order restricting the defendant from using the logo MHS or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the trademark logo of MDH. MHS was restrained from manufacturing, selling or marketing any spices or condiments using the impugned logo or any other trademark that was identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of MDH. The court also awarded punitive damages amounting to Rs 1 lakh.
Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra and Mahindra
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that based on phonetic similarity, the name “Mahendra & Mahendra” infringed the early trade name “Mahindra”, which had been in use for five decades and thus acquired a distinctive and secondary meaning. The paper mill was restrained from using the deceptively similar name.
Starbucks vs Sardarbuksh
The Delhi High Court on August 1, 2018 granted interim relief in favour of Starbucks, directing the defendants to use the name "Sardarji-Bakhsh" (instead if Sardarbuksh) for their 20 new, upcoming outlets until the final hearing of the suit on September 27, 2018. After the hearing, it was agreed that the defendant would change the name of all of its outlets to "Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co."
One subscription. Two world-class reads.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Quarterly Starter
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app