+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment

IP Tag

SURANA & SURANA > Posts tagged "IP"

National Conference on Intellectual Property for National Growth

National Conference On Intellectual Property For National Growth

Inspite of growing awareness about the importance of intellectual property protection among corporates, practical information about what IP strategies and filings are best for corporate growth, remains low. The conference aimed at educating corporates on the various government schemes for MSMEs, Indian Patent and Trademark Office practices, and various approaches to effective IP filing and enforcement. The conference was organised by Surana & Surana International Attorneys in association with Intellectual Property Bar of India Trust, supported by Hindustan Chamber of Commerce & The Tamil Chamber of Commerce. In his inaugural Address by Dr Vinod Surana, Managing Partner & CEO, Surana & Surana...

Continue reading

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 6 SEP 2021

IPR News update template - 6 Sep

Zed Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hardhik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya The Plaintiff holds 18 registrations for the mark ‘BEARDO’ inclusive of Class 3. The Defendant holds registrations in Class 7 and 11 for the identical mark ‘BEARDO’ to which rectification proceedings are pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The Plaintiff has successfully satisfied the criteria envisaged under Section 29(4)  of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by virtue of which an injunction order was passed restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark as it is or in conjunction with any other figure or manner. The Delhi High Court further ordered the Defendants to...

Continue reading

IP News Weekly Update – 26-31 July 2021

IP News Weekly Update – 26-31 July 2021

Trademark tiff on ‘Natural Ice creams’  The Plaintiff, Siddhant Icecreams LLP & Kamath Ourtimes Icecreams Pvt. Ltd. sued a Gujarat-based company and another for infringing the use of the term “Natural Ice Cream”. The Plaintiff is seeking damage and compensation of nearly 150 crore for infringement of its registered trademark that has been in widespread popular use since 1984. The Defendant also alleges long-standing yet subsequent use of its impugned trademark since 1992 and opposes the claims of the Plaintiff. The Bombay High Court held that Plaintiffs have a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and against...

Continue reading