Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 JULY 2024

IPR Weekly Highlights (39)

Lex Mantis
Explore more from Lex Mantis

Jindal India Limited ("Plaintiff") filed a suit alleging the infringement of their JINDAL marks (both word and device) by Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited ("Defendant") who are using a similar mark "HINDJAL HISAR" (Impugned Mark) for galvanized, black steel tubes and pipes.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Lex Mantis
Lex Mantis

TRADEMARK

DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS INTERIM INJUNCTION IN JINDAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE

Jindal India Limited ("Plaintiff") filed a suit alleging the infringement of their JINDAL marks (both word and device) by Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited ("Defendant") who are using a similar mark "HINDJAL HISAR" (Impugned Mark) for galvanized, black steel tubes and pipes. According to the Plaintiff, the Impugned Mark is phonetically, visually and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's JINDAL marks, and the Impugned Mark is also being used in relation to similar goods as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's registered trademarks have been in continuous use since 1932. According to the Plaintiff, the Impugned Mark is deceptively similar and has the potential to cause confusion and harm to their business. The Defendant has withdrawn their application after being served the plaint. Despite this, the Plaintiff sought an injunction against any future applications.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law