Delhi District Court
167 cases · page 1 of 6
Showing 1–29Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Rakesh Kumar & Anr.
Levi Strauss & Co., the globally renowned manufacturer of jeans and apparel, filed a suit for permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts against defendants Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Maity, who were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks including LEVI'S, the Two Horse logo, and the Arcuate Stitching Design. The suit was initially filed under the John Doe principle as the defendants' identities were unknown, and a Court Commissioner was appointed to identify them and seize infringing goods. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
ASICS Corporation v.Sachin Sheokand & Another
ASICS Corporation, a Japanese company and registered proprietor of the well-known 'ASICS' trademark in India since 1982, filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes bearing the ASICS mark. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against defendant no. 2, Mr. Shamsher Gahlawat, who failed to appear or file a written statement. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction, awarded nominal damages of Rs. 2,00,000, and quantified litigation costs at Rs. 1,50,000.
State v.Akash
The case involved prosecution of Akash for alleged sale of counterfeit HP-branded toner and ink cartridges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from FIR No. 213/2019 at PS Daryaganj. The complainant, Khushmeet Singh Bhati from Ikon Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., failed to identify the accused, the location of the raid, or the seized products during his testimony as PW-1. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Mr. Promod Yadav & Ors.
Levi Strauss And Co., the globally renowned owner of the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos including the Two Horse design, BATWING designs, and Arcuate Stitching Design, filed a commercial suit seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC against three defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and marketing counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court, finding irrefutable and unrebutted evidence of infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion, allowed the application and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages.
Narender Kumar v.The State
This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.
The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)
This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of steel, lighting, and electrical goods marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', filed a commercial suit against Maddi Ramiah Kutati (trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the deceptively similar mark 'SURYA CAB' for electrical wires and cables. The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright, engaged in passing off, and was not an innocent user. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest, delivery-up of infringing goods and materials, and costs of the suit.
KRBL Limited v.Sri Krishna Agencies & Others
KRBL Limited, the proprietor of the well-known registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' for rice and food products (registered since 1993 under Class 30), filed a suit against Sri Krishna Agencies and its partners for infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' adoption and use of the trademark 'MADRAS GATE' for identical goods was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'INDIA GATE' mark. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction, delivery up, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of Rs. 1.00 lakh along with costs.
State v.Sumit Verma
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 191/2019 registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, based on a complaint by Sh. Suresh Kaushik, an employee of MS Protect IP Solutions LLP, alleging that a raid at the house of accused Sumit Verma revealed a Dell computer, pen-drive, and bar code printer containing counterfeit MRP stickers of HAL and TMC companies, leading to charges under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, who was the most material witness, turned hostile and failed to identify the accused, causing the prosecution's case to collapse. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Rahul Arora
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 645/2021 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi, alleging that accused Rahul Arora and Vikas Yadav were dealing in counterfeit products bearing falsified marks of M/s Luk Products and Schaeffler KG, in violation of Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, Sh. Ajit Kumar (employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd.), turned hostile during trial and failed to identify the accused persons, and the case property was destroyed in a fire near PS Kashmere Gate on 31.05.2026. The Delhi District Court acquitted both accused persons, holding that the prosecution's foundational pillars had collapsed and that no admissible evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Parvinder Singh
The State prosecuted Parvinder Singh for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging that on 12.05.2016 he was found in possession of counterfeit products bearing the falsified trademark of M/s Harish Industrial Corporation. The prosecution's case collapsed because the case property was destroyed in a fire at the malkhana of PS Kashmere Gate, making it impossible to establish the identity of the seized goods. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Rakesh Kohli
The State prosecuted Rakesh Kohli, Bhaga Ram, Vipin Kumar, and Deepak Kumar under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly manufacturing, stocking, and selling counterfeit automobile parts bearing the registered trademarks of Bajaj Auto Company. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, Sh. Jitender Kumar, and an expert witness, Ratan Pal Singh. The Court acquitted all four accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited
This is an ex-parte judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant issued groundless threats through legal notices and letters regarding the plaintiff's trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in relation to supari, pan masala, gutkha, and related goods. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the threats illegal and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)
The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
State v.Manoj Kumar
The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. v.Oshma Aeronautics
The plaintiff, Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Oshma Aeronautics, for a Main Rotor Blade of Helicopter VT-ATA valued at Rs.17,50,000/-, paying a 60% advance of Rs.10,50,000/- via RTGS. The defendant failed to deliver the product and issued multiple cheques towards refund, all of which were dishonoured. The defendant did not file a written statement, and the court, relying on Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, decreed the suit for Rs.5,70,000/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. (reduced from the claimed 24% p.a.) from the date of filing till realization, plus costs.
Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.
This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery
This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,78,355/- from the defendant, M/s. Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd., for part work allegedly executed under a work order dated 15.12.2020 relating to desilting operations on sewer lines and storm drains at Najafgarh, Delhi (DMRC Contract CC 126A). The defendant contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work without valid cause, that the invoice was forged with inflated rates, and that the agreed 20% discount was not applied. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove actual execution, measurement, and certification of the work, and that the invoice did not match the rates specified in the work order, dismissing the suit.
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited v.Vienna IT Solutions Private Limited
Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.