Vijaytha Legal Associates

Myntra's Logo Controversy: A Case Study in Public Perception and Brand Evolution with Vijaytha Legal Associates The Myntra logo controversy serves as a stark reminder of the immense power of public opinion in shaping brand perception and even trademark validity. This article examines how a single complaint against Myntra's "M" logo led to widespread debate and a complete redesign, demonstrating that a brand's visual identity is ultimately defined by its audience. This case highlights the critical importance of understanding public sentiment, a lesson deeply understood by legal experts at Vijaytha Legal Associates who navigate complex brand challenges. When the public speaks, brands listen or face the consequences. Public opinion isn’t just a whisper; it’s a roar that can redefine a trademark. One such prime example is the Myntra controversy, showcasing how consumer sentiment can directly influence the very trademarks companies use to represent themselves. For yea...

Unravelling Trademark Disputes: Insights from Vijaytha Legal Associates on Under Armour's Win This article delves into the Delhi High Court's significant ruling in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., offering insights from legal experts on trademark infringement. It examines the nuances of the court's application of the Global Appreciation Test and Initial Interest Confusion. Discover the legal complexities of brand protection, a field in which Vijaytha Legal Associates offers comprehensive guidance and expertise. Background This judgment arises from an intra-court appeal filed by Under Armour Inc., challenging the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. 23362/2023 in CS(COMM) 843/2023. The appeal was brought before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The respondents in the appeal are Anish Agarwal and another, who were also the respondents in the original suit filed by Under Armour, alleging trademark infringement, copyright, ...

  When English Prevails: Vijaytha Legal Associates on Constitutional Clarity in Discrepancies This article examines the recent W.P. No. 3673/2023 High Court ruling, which upheld the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations over Hindi versions, as per Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India. It explores a case where a teacher’s eligibility was disputed due to this linguistic discrepancy. Vijaytha Legal Associates offers insights into this critical legal principle and its implications for interpreting statutory texts. Justice: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula Factual Background W.P. No. 3673/2023 addresses a fundamental principle of legal interpretation in India: the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations in the event of a discrepancy with their Hindi counterparts, as mandated by Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in this case had participated in the Middle School Teaching Eligibility Test, 2018, for th...

  "NEHA" Trademark Tussle: Why Vijaytha Legal Associates Views This as a Landmark IP Case This judgment by the High Court of Delhi, dated May 19, 2025, settles a complex trademark dispute over the use of the common Indian forename "NEHA" for personal care products. It delves into proprietorship, prior use claims, and the nuances of passing off. Vijaytha Legal Associates highlights how this ruling clarifies key aspects of trademark law and the rigorous evidentiary standards required for successful litigation. Justice: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula Factual Background This judgment by the High Court of Delhi, dated May 19, 2025, addresses a consolidated trademark dispute (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 355/2021, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 455/2022, and CS(COMM) 207/2023). The core of the suit lies in competing claims over the use of the trademark “NEHA,” a very common Indian forename. The dispute is between Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Sahni Cosmetics, both of whom utilize the mark ...

  Unpack the Ritz Trademark Victory: A Landmark Ruling This article delves into the recent High Court ruling (CS(COMM) 8/2025) that elevated the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON trademarks to "Well-Known" status. It highlights the aggressive defense by the trademark owners against infringement and the critical factors considered by the court. Vijaytha Legal Associates offers insights into this significant case, emphasizing its implications for trademark protection in India and demonstrating their expertise in intellectual property law. The case of CS(COMM) 8/2025, I.A. 255/2025 & I.A. 256/2025, centers on the significant elevation of the RITZ Hotel Ltd's trademark to the status of a “Well-Known Trademark.” This landmark decision has considerable implications for trademark law in India, underscoring the rigorous criteria for such recognition. Vijaytha Legal Associates has been closely monitoring this case, recognizing its importance for businesses seeking robust brand protecti...

  Introduction In a significant ruling that reaffirms the strength of trademark protection in India, the Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favor of KRBL Limited , the owner of the iconic India Gate rice brand, against Praveen Kumar Buyyani , the proprietor of a competing brand titled Bharat Gate . The case explores fundamental issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and the critical importance of consumer perception in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. Background KRBL Limited has been selling premium-quality basmati rice under the registered trademark India Gate since 1993, enjoying widespread recognition in both domestic and international markets. In 2020, Praveen Kumar Buyyani introduced a new brand called Bharat Gate in the economy segment, priced significantly lower than India Gate . The product was sold online and in physical retail outlets, raising concerns about potential confusion among consumers. KRBL alleged that the use of the mark Bharat...

Case Details Case Title: Ankur Warikoo & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. Court: Delhi High Court Case No.: CS(COMM) 514/2025 Date of Judgment: 26 May 2025 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal   With the exponential rise in AI-generated content, legal systems worldwide are confronting novel challenges: Can someone's face and voice be protected under Indian law? Does the misuse of these elements count as trademark infringement ? How should courts tackle deepfakes that mislead consumers? At Vijaytha Legal Associates , we track landmark rulings that shape the future of intellectual property and personality rights in India. The 2025 decision in Ankur Warikoo & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. is one such milestone. Background of the Case Plaintiff No. 1, Ankur Warikoo, is a renowned public figure and finance educator with over 15 million followers across Meta-owned platforms. Plaintiff No. 2, M/s Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd., owns the edtech brand ‘WebV...

  Trademark Disputes in India: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. – A Landmark Delhi High Court Ruling Authored by Vijaytha Legal Associates – Experts in Intellectual Property Litigation Case Citation: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024 Delhi High Court – Division Bench Judgment dated 23.05.2025 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta At Vijaytha Legal Associates , we regularly analyse evolving jurisprudence in Indian trademark law . One such recent and significant decision is the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench ruling in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. , which highlights the strength of composite marks, the role of initial interest confusion, and the modern approach to comparative trademark analysis under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 . 🔍 Background of the Dispute The case stems from an intra-court appeal filed by Under Armour Inc. , a globally reputed American br...