India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 40 of 311 · 7,456 total
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...
Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.
Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd v.Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio
The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.
Bikaner Sweets Corner v.Balaji Corner & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bikaner Sweets Corner against Balaji Corner & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' adoption of the identical mark 'BIKANER SWEET CORNER' constituted potential infringement and passing off, given the proximity of the outlets and similarity of goods. Furthermore, the Defendants were immediately directed to cease using the impugned signboards and packaging within one week.
Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr. v.Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pi Investment Advisory LLP against Registrant of Premjiex.Com & Ors. The court granted the plaintiffs exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court allowed the filing of additional documents and formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for service and pleadings.
Bulgari S.P.A v.Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels
Bulgari S.P.A filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels for alleged infringement of trademarks and copyright. Following mediation, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in July 2025. The Delhi High Court subsequently accepted this agreement, finding that all executory obligations had been met by the defendant. Consequently, the court disposed of the original suit strictly in terms of the settlement, while also directing the refund of the entire court fee to the plaintiff.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Sauss Home Products Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Robin' bird device mark used in FMCG products. The court first dismissed the defendant's challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to sales and online promotion there. Subsequently, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and copyright infringement, granting an interim injunction against the defendant.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. v.Maschio Crop Protection Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. against Maschio Crop Protection Llp, halting the latter's use of the 'MASCHIO' mark and similar variants. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given its global reputation and registered rights since 1998. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the brand while the main suit proceeds.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Limra Auto Connect
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, affirming the strength of its trademark rights over 'HERO' across various products. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from serving advance notice on the defendant, M/S Limra Auto Connect. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct an inventory of alleged infringing goods, including packaging materials, ensuring the preservation of evidence in this ongoing intellectual property dispute.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aubade Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aubade Healthcare Private Limited regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, demonstrating a balance of convenience, and noting the likelihood of irreparable harm if the Defendants were not restrained from using similar marks to 'ZENTEL.' This interim order is crucial for protecting the Plaintiff's brand integrity while the main suit proceeds.
Thilakarasu Venkatasamy trading as Grand Catering Company v.Brand Avatar Llp
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions OP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024 after the parties, Thilakarasu Venkatasamy and Brand Avatar LLP, reached an out-of-court settlement. The petitions sought the removal or rectification of specific trademark entries (Registration Nos. 5795826 and 3843193) in Class 41. Given the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the proceedings to be dismissed without further order on costs.
Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. v.Baljit Singh Gandhi
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. against Baljit Singh Gandhi. The court permitted the Plaintiffs to submit additional documentation, while also granting an exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court proceeded with interim measures, directing a Local Commission to be executed to inspect and inventory alleged infringing goods bearing the 'SIGNATURE' trademark.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Ranjan Kumar Yadav Owner Of Anavi Collection
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Ranjan Kumar Yadav for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's', in relation to clothing and accessories. The court proceeded ex parte against the defendant due to non-appearance and found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks on inferior quality goods.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.