Delhi District Court
138 cases · page 2 of 5
Showing 31–59Ask Automotive Limited v.A.S.K. Enterprises
The plaintiff, Ask Automotive Limited, a major supplier of automotive friction products under the well-known trade mark 'ASK', filed a suit against A.S.K. Enterprises for infringement of its trademark and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally manufacturing and selling goods bearing the identical trademark 'ASK' to deceive the public.
M/s Rspl Limited v.M/s Sunil Store (Proprietor & Owner) Trading as M/s Parth Store
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Sunil Store, alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights related to detergent products. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark GHARI/GHADI and passing off goods as belonging to the plaintiff.
M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Spdd Infra Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for a decree of Rs. 46,54,721/-, along with interest and permanent injunction, alleging misuse or infringement related to 80 patented moulds used in constructing Reinforced Earth (RE) Walls. The court examined the contractual relationship and the claims regarding outstanding payments.
Levi Strauss & Co v.Ashok Woven Labels And Ors
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks, specifically 'LEVI's' and 'LEVI'S PREMIUM'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit labels and goods using the protected marks. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Tag Heuer S.A. v.Tinya International
Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit against Tinya International and others alleging infringement of its trademarks (TAG HEUER) and copyrights related to its stylized labels. The court found in favor of Tag Heuer, granting permanent injunctions and awarding specific monetary reliefs.
Suprajit Engineering Limited v.Shivam Pandey And Ors
Suprajit Engineering Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'SUPRAJIT', passing off, and violating its copyright related to automotive cables. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were deceptively using the mark and trade dress on their goods. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting an injunction and awarding token damages.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh v.Pawan Sharma
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was using identical/similar trademarks ('BOSS HUGO BOSS', 'BOSS', etc.) in relation to clothing and garments, causing confusion. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Piyush Goel
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Piyush Goel alleging infringement of its trademarks, including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design', as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was clandestinely stocking and selling inferior quality jeans using deceptively similar marks. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
M/s Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd v.Akshay Uttamchand Jain Trading As Micon Industries
The plaintiff, Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using the deceptively similar trademark 'MICON', infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BIOCON'. The court found that the resemblance was close enough to constitute passing off and infringement.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
Dr. Nidhi Gulati v.M/s. Repro Books Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Repro Books Limited (and Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) for the unauthorized reproduction and sale of her copyrighted Ph.D thesis, "Construction of Childhood in Cinema," as a book. The court found that Defendant No. 1 infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff by selling a word-for-word copy without permission or royalty.
R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes
The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Inder Mohan Chadha
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Inder Mohan Chadha for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's' and the Two Horse logo. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing falsified marks identical or deceptively similar to those registered by Levi Strauss & Company.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Lalit Kumar Jaggia
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit against Lalit Kumar Jaggia seeking permanent injunctions due to the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, including 'LEVI'S', 'Two Horse Logo', and associated designs, as well as copyright violation in its labels. The court found the defendant guilty of flagrant infringement and decreed the suit for permanent injunction along with awarding punitive damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar Khatri
The plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit against its former employee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, alleging that he breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business secrets and client information to a competitor. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the alleged irreparable loss.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Tracking Shoes Company
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a suit against Tracking Shoes Company alleging that the latter was counterfeiting and infringing upon Nike's trademarks (NIKE, Swoosh Device) in relation to footwear and apparel. The court found that the defendant had adopted identical marks and was causing deception in the market.
M/s Levi Strauss & Company v.Vishal Kashyap
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Vishal Kashyap alleging that he was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant had illegally adopted the plaintiff's distinctive features and infringed upon its rights.
Ask Automotive Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar (Manoj Mudgal)
The plaintiff company, ASK Automotive Pvt Ltd, filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant, Manoj Mudgal, was manufacturing and selling goods (brake shoes) bearing the identical or deceptively similar trademark/trade dress 'ASK', thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrights. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Vrajotsav Goswami v.Devendra Verma
Vrajotsav Goswami filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Devendra Verma, alleging infringement and passing off of his unique singing style name 'Vrajrang' (ब्रजररग), which he claimed to have developed since 1983. The defendant counter-claimed for declaration of prior user rights over the word 'Brajrang'.
Vrajotsav Goswami v.Devendra Verma And Anr.
The plaintiff, Vrajotsav Goswami, sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringement of his 'Vrajrang' style/trademark and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the name 'Vrajrang (ब्रजररग)' by the defendant No. 1 in publishing a book. Both the main suit and the counter claim filed by the defendant were ultimately dismissed.
Lacoste S.A. v.Sheetal Fabrics
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.
M/S TAG HEUER S.A. v.SH. AJIT SINGH
The plaintiff, M/s Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit alleging that unknown persons were using its trademark on inferior quality counterfeit products. A Local Commissioner was appointed to search the premises of the defendant, where 137 watches and other materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark were recovered. The court found the material unrebutted and granted relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Rudra Marketing
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rudra Marketing and others for infringing its trademarks ('GLEN') and passing off its products. The plaintiff alleged that defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'GLEE' on home appliances, confusing consumers.
Mohd Shah Fahad Trading as Shah Enterprises v.Raghav Nathani
Mohd. Shah Fahad filed a suit against Raghav Nathani and others, alleging that Defendant No. 1 was infringing his registered trademark 'Classio' by using 'Classio Fashion' on e-commerce platforms, causing monetary loss and damage to goodwill. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's suit due to repeated willful and deliberate non-compliance with court orders and failure to prove a prima facie case.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark 'Levi's', copyright, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel. The court found that defendant no.1 was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing counterfeit products, leading to a decree for damages.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Sumit Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling goods bearing falsified "Levi's" marks. The court found that the defendants were engaged in infringing activities and remained absent from court proceedings. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff.
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.