Plaintiff Favorable
102 plaintiff favorable decisions from Delhi District Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
102 cases | Page 4 of 4
M/S Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Refnol Resins & Chemicals Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered trade marks (REINOL/RIO-REINOL) and passing off goods under the deceptive mark 'Refnol' or company name REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks amounted to infringement and passed off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shree Ganesh Garments
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shree Ganesh Garments alleging clandestine manufacturing, storing, distributing, and retailing apparel under deceptively similar trademarks to 'Levi's'. The plaintiff claimed ownership of several registered trademarks related to its clothing line. The court found the defendant guilty of blatant trademark infringement and granted comprehensive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Diageo Brands B. v.Sh. Sanjay Jain
The plaintiff, Diageo Brands B., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and dilution of its famous trademark JOHNNIE WALKER. The defendants were manufacturing and selling clothing under the deceptively similar mark 'JOHNY WALKER'.
M/S. Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.M/S. Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. filed a suit against Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks OMIDON and EMEDOM in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'OMEDO' to confuse consumers and erode goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction and damages.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shivani Label
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shivani Label alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's claims substantiated by un-rebutted testimony and documents.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Prateek Trading Co.
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Prateek Trading Co. alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's case to be true based on un-rebutted testimony and documents.
Rainforest CAFÉ, Inc. v.Rain Forest Cafe
The plaintiff, Rainforest CAFÉ Inc., a US-based restaurant chain owner, filed a suit against local defendants for using the identical mark 'RAINFOREST CAFÉ' and its associated logo/tagline in connection with their restaurant business in Delhi. The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the plaintiff's trade marks and copyrights.
M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited v.M/s. Sri Ganesh Video
The plaintiff, M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (T-Series), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for illegally manufacturing and marketing VCDs of three specific Kannada films (Parvathi Kalyana, Sampathige Saval, Giri Kanye) which the plaintiff claimed to have acquired exclusive copyright rights over. The court found that the defendants willfully infringed the plaintiff's copyright and consequently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
J & P Coats Ltd. v.New Green Ways
J & P Coats Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and account of profit against New Green Ways, alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing stitch kits and tatting materials under the trade mark ANCHOR in connection with goods unrelated to the plaintiffs' business. The court found that the defendants were wrongfully selling and passing off goods as those of the plaintiffs.
Shiva Tobacco Company v.Madan Lal Jain
The plaintiff, Shiva Tobacco Company, sought a restraining order against the defendant for allegedly infringing its registered trade mark 'TIGER' used on chewing tobacco. The plaintiff demonstrated long-standing use of the mark since 1955, while the defendant claimed prior usage since 1963. The court found that a prima facie case existed in favor of the plaintiff and granted temporary injunction.
ADC GmbH v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, including ADC GmbH and Krone Communication Ltd., filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd. alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling junction box casings identical to those protected by Indian Patent No.164857. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement.
Havells India Limited v.Vijay
Havells India Limited sued Vijay for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Vijay from using the HAVELLS trademark. The court also awarded damages and punitive damages to Havells India Limited. The case highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks in India.
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.