Straightforward answers to the questions brand owners across Gujarat actually ask us — on searching, filing, defending and renewing a trademark.
How opposition and deceptive similarity actually get decided in India — with six landmark cases to cite in a notice or c...
Read Guide ↗Whether "Super Cup" — laudatory plus descriptive — can still function as a protectable trademark. Supreme Court, 1997.
Read Guide ↗Madras High Court holds a common flavour descriptor cannot be monopolised without proof it identifies one brand alone. 2...
Read Guide ↗Delhi High Court: a descriptive mark needs more than a few years of use to acquire distinctiveness. 2010.
Read Guide ↗Calcutta High Court: a well-known geographical name needs very strong evidence of distinctiveness to be registered. 1968...
Read Guide ↗Delhi High Court: continuous, distinctive use of a translated word can earn secondary meaning. 2002.
Read Guide ↗Supreme Court: a common descriptive prefix shared by two marks does not, by itself, cause confusion. 1994.
Read Guide ↗Delhi High Court: a shared word is not generic just because a defendant claims it is — the trade context decides. 1994.
Read Guide ↗The single most-cited test for deceptive similarity in Indian trademark law. Supreme Court, 2001.
Read Guide ↗That is what we help you decide. Then we search it, file it, defend it, and keep it renewed for the next ten years — from Ahmedabad, for all of Gujarat.