TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: Trademark Victory for Veerji Malai Chaap Wale: Delhi HC Penalizes Imitator Food Joints

In a trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to the popular food chain Veerji Malai Chaap Wale. Justice Amit Bansal passed the order against five eateries that failed to appear in court, resulting in an ex parte decree and imposition of exemplary damages. The defendants, located in Delhi, Raipur, Uttar Pradesh, and Haridwar, were found using deceptively similar names such as VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE and VEERE DI MALAI CHAAP & KATHI KABAB, and were listed on platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. Each was ordered to pay ₹1 lakh. The Court held that the use of these names was a dishonest attempt to exploit the goodwill of Veerji Restaurant, misleading consumers and benefiting unfairly from its reputation. As the defendants filed no written statement, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and issued a decree accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI, CS(COMM)862/2023 with I.A. 24140/2023 and I.A. 11635/2025

PATENT

 

Tesla, Inc files new Trademark application for "TESLA ROBOTAXI" after setbacks with generic terms

 TESLA ROBOTAXI

Tesla is renewing its efforts to secure a trademark for its autonomous vehicle service by filing a new application for the term "Tesla Robotaxi." This move comes after previous attempts to trademark more generic names like "Robotaxi" and "Cybercab" were hindered by regulatory challenges.

Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) informed the company that its application for "Robotaxi" lacked sufficient specificity, noting that the term is widely used by other companies in the industry.

The latest trademark application for "Tesla Robotaxi" was filed on May 30, 2025, under US Serial Number: 99211111, with Tesla, Inc., a Texas-based corporation, listed as the owner.

Trademark Infringement: Even Brief Consumer Confusion is Enough, Rules Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling on trademark law, the Delhi High Court has held that even momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law. The decision came in the case of Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., where American sportswear company Under Armour, Inc. successfully restrained an Indian clothing brand from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR.”

The ruling, delivered by a division bench on May 23, 2025, pertains to trademark Class 25, which includes clothing, footwear, and headgear. The Court emphasized that the duration of consumer confusion is immaterial; even short-lived or initial confusion can fulfill the criteria for deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

The confusion, albeit limited to the initial stage, is sufficient to satisfy the condition of deceptive similarity as contemplated under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act," the bench observed.

“Extension of Limitation” by Supreme Court of India in view of Covid-19 Virus

The Supreme court of India has taken suo moto cognizance in a petition for “Extension of Limitation” in view of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). 

In order to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country, the Court ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order to be passed by this Court.

While pronouncing the order, the court exercised the power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declared that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.

The court has also directed that this order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts in India for further communication to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

In view of this court’s order, it is likely that the Indian Patent Office and the Indian Trade Marks Registry issue specific notices clarifying automatic extension of time in respect of matters, such as filing of applications (including PCT filing), replying to office action, filing of any other documents in respect of application/opposition/rectification, hearings and in any other related matter, where there is prescribed deadline falling on March 15, 2020 and thereafter. This will bring relief not only to the applicant/opponent/petitioner/respondent and other interested parties in any proceeding but also to attorneys and agents in India and abroad. 

Indian Patent office launched Comprehensive e-filing facility

In an official function held on December 15, 2012, the Indian Patent office launches the facility of Comprehensive online filing. This newly launched facility by the Indian Patent office is a bold step towards a paperless virtual office in the future.

Though the Indian Patent office has first launched the e-filing services in the year 2007, such facility was limited only to filing of patent applications. However, the newly developed online facility has been integrated to file patent applications and other subsequent requests along with the prescribed fees through the electronic gateway. The service is aimed at simplifying the e-filing process and to eliminate transaction errors.

The launched on-line filing facility is a web based system which allows a dual way login through User Id or Digital signature. Now a user can comfortably own and manage personal folders in the Patent office environment. For this, the user simply needs a Digital signature and an internet banking account for e-filing.

According to the information revealed by the Patent office, there has been remarkable growth in the e-filing of application since the commencement of e-filing facility in the year 2007. Until the end of November 2012, it is estimated that about one-third of the patent applications filed in the Patent Office have been through the electronic means. Hence, the launch of the comprehensive e-filing facility is expected to enhance the confidence of applicants and patent attorneys and further augment the practice of filing patent applications through the electronic mode.

ONLINE FACILITY LAUNCHED TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE DATABASE OF INDIAN TRADE MARKS REGISTRY

By virtue of a Public notice dated September 17, 2012, the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks of India (CGPDTM), launched an online tool for making request for correction of clerical errors in the records the Trade Marks Registry’s database. In order to attend to such request for correction, a link has been provided for in the official website of CGPDTM.

The notification provided by CGPDTM points that in case of any clerical error in the data entry of a pending application for registration of trade mark or in the records of Trade Marks Register in respect of a registered trade mark, the applicant/proprietor or their authorized agent may avail this facility and request for the desired correction through the online tool. However, such request for correction has to be on the basis of supporting documents, which is also required to be uploaded through that tool.

Once the request for correction has been made, the competent officer of the Trade Marks Registry will scrutinize such requests on the basis of the existing records and supporting documents uploaded by the applicant/proprietor/agents and in cases of genuine errors, such officer shall correct the relevant records.

The notification also clarifies that this online tool is meant only for the correction of clerical/typographical errors that have crept in during the data entry stage and not for the recordal of any change or amendment that has taken place during the course of prosecution of an application or grant of registration of a trade mark.