Plaintiff Favorable
102 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi District Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
102 cases | Page 3 of 4
Artsana India Private Limited v.Vishanji Viijpar Savla
The plaintiff, Artsana India Private Limited, a subsidiary of Artsana SPA (Italy), claimed ownership of the well-known trademark "CHICCO" used for child care goods. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was fraudulently adopting and misusing this trademark to run his own business, causing dilution and loss. The court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and awarded costs.
Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory
The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
Krbl Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark, 'INDIA GATE with device of INDIA GATE', which is used in the business of rice. The court found that Defendant No. 1 was fraudulently using the trademark through an impugned website and domain name, leading to unauthorized sales and collection of money.
Levi Straus & Company v.Sunil Yadav
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Sunil Yadav for the clandestine manufacturing, storing, and selling of jeans and accessories bearing falsified trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design'. The court found that the defendant was blatantly infringing the registered trademarks and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Kurlon Enterprises Ltd. v.M/S Goel Foam Co.
The plaintiff, Kurlon Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, M/S Goel Foam Co., was misguiding customers by displaying the plaintiff's glow sign board and selling products under its name without authorization. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved through documentary evidence that the defendant was infringing upon their trade mark and business reputation.
M/s. L'Oreal S.A. v.M/s. J.R. Cosmetic Shop
The plaintiff, L'Oreal S.A., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, J.R. Cosmetic Shop, was manufacturing and selling goods using trademarks deceptively similar to its well-known brands like L'OREAL and MAYBELLINE in Hyderabad. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
MC-monitoring SA v.Pro Tech Monitoring Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in developing predictive health monitoring solutions for rotating machines, sued the defendant for illegal use, passing off, dilution, and copyright infringement of its name/mark MC-monitoring. The plaintiff argued that the mark had acquired international recognition and goodwill. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
Krbl Limited v.Smerkato
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Smerkato for infringing its well-known trademark 'INDIA GATE' with device, which is used in relation to rice. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive use, goodwill, and acquired rights in the mark. The court found that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff's rights and granted a decree of permanent injunction.
Sh. Amar Tulsiyan v.Harshil Jayeshbhai Shah
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing his registered and adopted trademarks (NIINE, NINE, 9) used in food and personal hygiene products. The court found that the defendant's adoption and intended use of 'Nine Plus' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks and constituted infringement.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Mehra
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement and passing off against the defendants for manufacturing and selling apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'Levi's'. The court found that the defendants were deliberately copying the plaintiff's marks with dishonest intent.
L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa
The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Swatch AG v.Suresh Kumar
Swatch AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar for infringing its well-known trademark 'SWATCH' by adopting the domain name www.swatchclub.in to sell similar goods. The court found that the impugned domain name was identical and deceptively similar, leading to huge losses for the plaintiff.
The Polo/Lauren Company L. P v.Reekha Bhati
The suit was filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L. P against Reekha Bhati for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks (POLO, POLO Ralph Lauren) on apparel and clothing goods. The court found that the defendant used identical/deceptively similar marks in relation to impugned goods, causing confusion and deception.
Larsen & Toubro Limited v.Radheshyam Singh
The plaintiffs (Larsen & Toubro Limited and General Industrial Controls Private Limited) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were infringing their trademarks (including Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT, etc., and GIC/GIC) and violating copyrights related to their product labeling. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement and passing off.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Rajender Kumar
The plaintiff, adidas AG through its Indian subsidiary, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'adidas', 'three bars', '3-Strips', and 'Trefoil'. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Sahil City Sports v.Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd
Sahil City Sports filed a petition to set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed against it. The original award directed Sahil City Sports to pay damages and permanently restrain it from using the respondent's brand name 'Cricket Academy of Pathans'.
Refread Solutions Private Limited v.Scientific E-Resource
The plaintiff, a company providing digital online libraries (Refread), sued the defendant for infringing its copyright and engaging in unfair competition. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was promoting a similar product ('Read Smart Digital') using the plaintiff's tagline and had copied 87% of the website content and 100% of the product. The court found infringement and granted relief.
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Anwar Ali
Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary filed a suit against Mr. Anwar Ali for infringing their registered trademarks ("adidas", "three bars", etc.) and copyrights on shoes and accessories. The court found that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, and selling inferior quality goods using deceptively similar marks, causing damage to Adidas' reputation.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Mr. Anwar Ali
The plaintiff, Nike Innovate C.V., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing identical or deceptively similar 'Nike' trademarks and logos in Delhi. The court found that the defendant was causing confusion and deception among the public by using falsified marks on inferior quality goods.
M/s Elofic Industries (India) v.Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Elofic Industries (India), a long-standing partnership concern dealing in filters, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was infringing its trademark ELOFIC and passing off goods under similar names. The court found that the plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding infringement.
M/S. Orient Bell Limited v.M/S. Royal Marketing
The plaintiff, M/S. Orient Bell Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s. Royal Marketing and M/s. Orient Cera Tiles for infringing its trademark 'Orient' and copyrighted logo 'Orient Tiles'. The court found that the defendants were engaging in passing off and infringement of the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed with relief granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Sh. P.C. Roy and Smt. Samita Roy v.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; M/s S & S Chemical Works
The plaintiffs, who developed a Thermo Reactive Plastic foam Resin based on phenol formaldehyde compositions, sued the Ministry of Defence and M/s S & S Chemical Works for violating their trade secrets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants leaked this confidential information to defendant no. 3, allowing it to manufacture similar goods. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the leakage of trade secrets but failed to prove the issue regarding rendition of accounts.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
Suresh Kumar Garg v.Pramod Kumar
Plaintiff, a sole proprietor manufacturing edible oil under M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant for infringing his trade mark numeral 1. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and use since 1981, while the defendant argued that '1' is a common expression and denied any similarity or deception.
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.