The Delhi high court has granted interim injunction in favour of US-based Tesla Inc by directing Indian company Tesla Power India not to use trademarks ‘Tesla Power' or ‘Tesla Power USA' in any form, including manufacturing of electric vehicles.Photograph: Kind courtesy, Makara Heng/PexelsThe court passed the interim order while noting that a statement has been made on behalf of defendants -– the Indian company -- that they have no intention to manufacture electric vehicles (EVs) at all and will not market ...

Core Viewpoint - The Delhi High Court has restrained Gurugram-based Tesla Power India from using the 'Tesla' brand for promotional advertisements related to electric vehicle products until the resolution of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Tesla Inc against the company [6]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Tesla Inc filed a lawsuit in May last year, alleging that Tesla Power's use of its trademark in India was causing consumer confusion and harming its business interests [6]. - The court noted an undertaking from Tesla Power's CEO that the company had no plans to enter the electric vehicle market, which influenced the court's decision to impose a restraint order [6]. - The court has prohibited Tesla Power from using the 'Tesla' mark in relation to various battery products and services, including lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries [6]. Group 2: Company Arguments - Tesla Power contended that it was not manufacturing electric vehicles but was only selling lead-acid batteries and inverters [4]. - The company claimed that advertisements featuring the Tesla trademark were related to a strategic partnership with another company, e-Ashwa, and not directly linked to Tesla Power's products [4]. - Tesla Power argued that it was not violating trademark laws, asserting that 'Tesla' is not a coined mark and that many companies share the same name globally, including in India [5]. Group 3: Compliance and Actions - Following accusations from Tesla Inc regarding the sale of electric scooters under various sub-brands, the court requested Tesla Power to provide an affidavit detailing the number of electric scooters sold [5]. - Tesla Power communicated to the court that it had instructed vendors and partners to remove the Tesla marks from electric scooters, emphasizing its intention to comply with the court's undertaking [5].

Core Viewpoint - Levi Strauss & Co. has initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit against Delta Galil Industries-owned 7 For All Mankind, claiming that the latter has misappropriated its tab trademark, which is essential for identifying authentic Levi's products [1][2]. Group 1: Trademark Infringement Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that 7FAM's use of the tab trademark could dilute or harm Levi's brand, as the tab is recognized globally as a symbol of authenticity and quality [1][2]. - Levi's claims that the tab trademark appears on nearly all of its jeans and other apparel, with millions of products sold annually featuring this trademark [2]. - The complaint specifies that the markings on 7FAM's products are likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the affiliation and origin of the products [3]. Group 2: Legal Actions Requested - Levi's has accused 7FAM of multiple legal violations, including federal trademark infringement and unfair competition, as well as California state trademark infringement [3]. - The company is seeking a court order to prevent 7FAM from creating, selling, or marketing products that resemble its tab trademark, which could mislead consumers [3].

Core Insights - Big Boy Restaurant Group is closing all six Dolly's Burgers & Shakes locations in Cincinnati and Dayton due to unsustainable operating conditions and ongoing legal challenges [1][2] Group 1: Company Challenges - The company faced a legal dispute with Frisch's Big Boy over trademark rights, which resulted in a temporary restraining order preventing the use of the Big Boy name in Southwest Ohio [4][5] - Financial difficulties at Frisch's led to the eviction of multiple locations, with Frisch's now operating just over 30 restaurants, down from 80 in 2024 [3] Group 2: Future Plans - Despite the closures, Big Boy Restaurant Group had plans to open over 50 restaurants in the area before the legal issues arose, and the company remains optimistic about returning to the market once the legal matters are resolved [7]

Core Points - JM Smucker has filed a lawsuit against Trader Joe's for allegedly infringing on its trademark rights with a similar product, a crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich [1][2] - The lawsuit highlights the similarities in product design, including crimped edges and a specific shade of blue in the packaging that Smucker has trademarked [2][3] - Uncrustables, Smucker's flagship product, has grown to nearly $1 billion in sales, with over 1.5 billion sandwiches produced annually [3] Company Overview - Smucker's Uncrustables brand is popular among children and is also consumed by NFL players, indicating a broad market appeal [8] - The company emphasizes the importance of protecting its trademarked design to maintain brand quality and prevent consumer confusion [3][9] Legal Context - The lawsuit claims that there is consumer confusion regarding the origin of Trader Joe's product, with social media discussions suggesting they may be produced in the same facilities as Uncrustables [9][10] - Smucker is seeking the removal of Trader Joe's crustless sandwiches and marketing materials, as well as compensation for profits earned from these products [11]

Core Viewpoint - Lululemon has filed a lawsuit against Costco, accusing the retailer of selling knockoff versions of its popular products, highlighting the challenges faced by established brands in combating "dupe culture" [1][2]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, filed in California, claims that Costco is selling and manufacturing knockoffs of Lululemon's Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets, and ABC pants, alleging trade dress infringement and unfair competition [2]. - Lululemon seeks compensation for lost profits and significant harm to its brand and reputation due to Costco's actions [2]. Group 2: Legal Challenges - Winning a trademark infringement lawsuit over dupe products is difficult, as the original manufacturer must prove that the copycat product could confuse customers into believing it is the real item [3][4]. - The burden of proof lies with the original company to demonstrate that the copycat product has caused confusion and impacted their business, which is challenging to establish [4]. Group 3: Industry Context - The rise of "dupe culture" has been significantly influenced by social media platforms like TikTok, where consumers actively seek and share cheaper alternatives to high-end products [6]. - TikTok videos featuring the dupe hashtag have garnered over 6 billion views, indicating a growing acceptance of purchasing knockoff products among younger consumers [6]. Group 4: Related Legal Cases - A notable case involved e.l.f. Cosmetics, which admitted to creating a product that mimicked Benefit Cosmetics' mascara but was ruled not to infringe on trademarks due to insufficient evidence of customer confusion [7][8]. - Other companies, such as Mondelez International and Williams-Sonoma, are also pursuing legal action against retailers and websites for similar trademark infringement claims [8].

Core Viewpoint - Lululemon Athletica has filed a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale, alleging trademark infringement due to the sale of clothing that closely resembles Lululemon's designs [2][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was filed in a California federal court, where Lululemon claims that Costco has unlawfully capitalized on its reputation and goodwill by selling unauthorized apparel that infringes on Lululemon's trade dress and design patents [3]. - Lululemon identified six specific products sold by Costco that allegedly violate its trademarked designs, including a Kirkland Signature pair of pants and jackets from various brands [5]. - The company is seeking damages for potential lost sales due to Costco's sale of these similar products and has requested a jury trial [5]. Group 2: Market Reaction - Despite the lawsuit, neither Lululemon nor Costco's stock prices have been significantly affected, with both companies seeing slight increases in premarket trading [6]. Group 3: Consumer Behavior - The lawsuit highlights a trend where consumers actively seek out "dupes" of popular products, with Lululemon referencing articles from The Washington Post and Wirecutter that discuss Costco's products as near-identical replicas of its own [4].