Delhi District Court
157 cases · page 2 of 6
Showing 31–59Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Lacoste S.A. v.Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited and others for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to its trademark LACOSTE and associated labels. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using identical or deceptively similar marks on goods like tags, buttons, and packaging materials. The court decreed the suit in favor of Lacoste.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor
The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
Anil Jain v.Rajan Bhutani
The plaintiff, trading as Mahavira Tractors, filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'REAL DIAMOND' (registered mark) versus 'STAR DIAMONDS' (defendant's mark) used for Mechanical Seals. The court found that the marks were not deceptively similar and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Astral Limited v.Mahavir Electric And Hardware Stores
Astral Limited filed a suit against Mahavir Electric & Hardware Stores and Vikram Traders for infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademark 'ASTRAL'. The court found that the defendants were adopting and using an identical trademark on counterfeit pipes and fittings, violating Astral's exclusive rights.
M/S Mishu Enterprises v.M/S Nakshatra 13
The plaintiff, M/S Mishu Enterprises, owns and uses the distinctive mark 'MACHHMANI' for selling sea stones and related jewellery. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, M/S Nakshatra 13, alleging unauthorized use of the same mark to deceive the public. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunctions.
M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited v.Sukanya Gupta
The petitioner, M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited, filed a petition to set aside an arbitral award against Mrs. Sukanya Gupta, alleging breach of contract and misuse of intellectual property related to beauty pageants. The petitioner claimed damages for her running a competing pageant shortly after the agreement expired. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding no patent illegality in the arbitrator's findings.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Umesh Chauhan
Levi Strauss And Company filed a suit against Umesh Chauhan and Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa alleging infringement of their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to clothing and jeans. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient positive evidence to corroborate the local commissioner's report, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
Apollo Pipes Ltd v.Nirmal Polymers
Apollo Pipes Ltd filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Nirmal Polymers for infringing its well-known trademarks ('APOLLO', 'APL APOLLO'). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks like 'A ONE APOLLO' in relation to PVC pipes and building material products, causing financial loss and damaging goodwill. The court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of Apollo Pipes Ltd.
M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. v.M/S EVERGREEN VENEERS PVT. LTD.
The plaintiff, Greenply Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark 'GREEN' against the defendant, Evergreen Veneers Pvt. Ltd., who was using the mark 'EVERGREEN' on similar goods (plywood products). The court examined issues of delay and trademark similarity.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.SITA SINGH Trading as Nikunj Traders
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, concerning its established trademark GHARI/GHADI. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress in relation to detergent powder, soap, and allied goods.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.Govind Rathore
The plaintiff, M/S RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (GHARI/GHADI) and associated trade dress by the defendants in relation to FMCG goods like soap and detergents. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ask 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.
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.