+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment

[language-switcher]
 

Sonos Tag

SURANA & SURANA > Posts tagged "Sonos"

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 7TH AUG-13TH AUG

DFM FOODS LIMITED v. CHANDEL STORE & ORS. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark of 'CRAX CURLS' and 'CURLS' which is a type of corn-based snack launched in December 2016. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant even though changed their trademark from ‘CURLS’ TO ‘KURVY’, the packaging of the same, both before and after name change is deceptively similar with that of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the plaintiff has prima facie case in their favor because customers can easily be confused and cheated since the goods are of low price. Therefore, restrained the defendant from using...

Continue reading

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 12 JAN 2022

AWS Music marks opposed by Amazon Amazon Technologies Inc. is opposing the registration of the mark “AWS MUSIC” claiming that the consumers are likely to be confused, mistaken, or deceived into believing that the goods offered under the newly applied AWS MUSIC mark are in some way endorsed by Amazon. It is also claimed by the Opponent that the company is the owner of 50 domestic registrations and pending trademark applications for its AWS Marks, covering a wide-range of goods and services and because of the company’s prior adoption and continuous use of the marks since 2002 and its substantial investment in...

Continue reading

IP News Weekly Update – 31 Aug 2021

IPR News update - 31 Aug

V Guard Industries Ltd. Vs. Sukan Raj Jain and Anr – Delhi High Court The Plaintiff, a proprietor from Kerala manufactures and markets electrical goods under the mark ‘V-Guard’ across the country and furthermore has a subordinate (supply) office in Delhi. The Plaintiff instituted a trademark infringement action before the Delhi High Court against the Defendant for using the mark ‘N-Guard’ with respect to machines electronics, electronic, electrical parts, etc. The Court has issued an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. The Defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction by stating that no cause of action arose within the Courts’ jurisdiction....

Continue reading