Plaintiff Favorable
106 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi District Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
106 cases | Page 1 of 4
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of electrical and lighting products marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', sued an individual trader (Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the marks 'SURYA CAB' and other Surya-formative marks for electric wires and cables. The plaintiff claimed infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrights, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The Commercial Court at Delhi decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of confusingly similar marks amounted to infringement and passing off, and granted permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15 lakhs, and delivery-up of all infringing goods and materials.
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.
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.
Ravi Chauhan v.Pankaj Chauhan
The plaintiff, a registered patent and trademark agent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- against the defendant. The dispute arose because the defendant failed to pay the agreed fees for filing a counter-statement in opposition to the trademark 'FULEZ'. Since the defendant remained absent despite service and was proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master
Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.
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.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Jaishankar
The plaintiff, Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., claimed that its registered trademark 'HANS CHAAP' was being infringed and passed off by the defendants in relation to tobacco products. Despite initial interim injunctions, the suit proceeded despite non-appearance of several defendants. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants 2 to 5 and awarding costs.
Louis 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).
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.