- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Declares "Boroline" A Well-Known Trademark, Issues Injunction Against "Borobeauty"
![Boroline Boroline](https://www.legaleraonline.com/h-upload/2024/08/28/1344612-boroline.webp)
Delhi High Court Declares "Boroline" A Well-Known Trademark, Issues Injunction Against "Borobeauty"
The Delhi High Court has recognized “Boroline,” as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act. Justice Mini Pushkarna affirmed that "BOROLINE" has achieved the status of a household name, being one of the oldest trademarks in continuous use since before India’s independence.
“There is no denying the fact that “BOROLINE” has attained the status of a household name, and is one of the oldest trademarks, which has been in continuous use, preceding the independence of India,” Justice Mini Pushkarna said.
The court instructed the Registrar of Trademarks to include “BOROLINE” in the list of well-known trademarks, contingent on G.D. Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Boroline, completing the necessary formalities.
The court also issued a permanent injunction against Cento Products, prohibiting the company from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the name "BOROBEAUTY," which was found to be deceptively similar to "BOROLINE." The judgment emphasized the long-standing use of the "BOROLINE" trademark, noting an advertisement for the product from August 15, 1947—the day India gained independence.
G.D. Pharmaceuticals had filed the suit in 2019, accusing Cento Products of imitating its iconic trade dress and trademark. The court directed Cento Products to alter its trade dress and trademark to ensure they are distinct from Boroline's well-known branding. Specifically, Cento Products must avoid using the dark green color and octagonal black cap associated with Boroline and must choose a new trade name that does not include the prefix "BORO."
In light of the protracted nature of the litigation, the court also ordered Cento Products to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in costs to G.D. Pharmaceuticals.