Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 29 of 46
Showing 841–869Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms. Y. Aafiya Halima against Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science alleging copyright infringement related to 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief regarding an Australian patent application. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a compromise memo.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima alleging copyright infringement concerning her work on 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief relating to an Australian patent application for the same product. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a joint compromise memo.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthik Subbaraj.G
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over the copyrights of its film 'Jigardhanda', damages, and permanent injunction against Karthik Subbaraj.G for alleged infringement. The parties subsequently executed a Joint Compromise Memo.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Shri Rhythm Agarwal. The core dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, not Chennai. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the lower court's decision, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the appellant had sufficient grounds under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to file the suit in its jurisdiction.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
M/s.Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh v.Mr.N.Balaji
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh, granting a substantial judgment for the recovery of dues and permanent injunctive relief. The suit involved claims related to goods supplied and investments made towards a joint venture that failed to materialize. Crucially, the court also recognized the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, ordering all defendants to cease any infringement of the 'Langro' trade name and associated logo. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes, combining commercial debt recovery with protection of intellectual property assets.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patents against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit in terms of this compromise, decreeing it against the third defendant and dismissing it against the first and second defendants.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patent (No. 197822) against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit based on this compromise.
S.Maheswari v.The Union of India
This writ petition challenged a summons issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding statements made in a daily newspaper concerning the rejection of her trademark registration. The petitioner had previously appealed this rejection to the IPAB, which remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Madras High Court ultimately quashed the impugned summons, holding that statutory authorities are creatures under law and cannot conduct inquiries or issue summons based merely on news reports published in a newspaper.
Saint-Gobain Glass France v.M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
The suit was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France (through its Indian subsidiary) against M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering for infringement of Suit Patent No.305596, which covers a system and method for installing glass panels. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing products, and damages. The Court found the Plaintiff to be the proprietor and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd. v.M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
Geoscope Exim Private Limited v.Snj Distillers Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal filed by Geoscope Exim Private Limited challenging an interlocutory order regarding passing off. The court noted that the main suit was at an advanced stage and, based on mutual agreement between counsel, decided to dispose of the appeal without expressing a definitive view on the merits. This decision allows the Commercial Division to proceed with the final arguments in the original infringement and passing-off case.
Netsweeper Inc. v.Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited & Others
Netsweeper Inc. filed a suit against several entities for passing off its corporate name 'NETSWEEPER' and infringing on its trademark rights. The plaintiff sought damages, permanent injunctions, and an accounting of profits derived from the deceptive use of the brand. While the court addressed multiple claims including licensing fees and tax debts owed to the government, the judgment primarily focused on restraining the defendants from using or dealing with the 'NETSWEEPER' name in a manner that suggests affiliation with the plaintiff.
M/S.Godaddy.Com Llc v.M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute over domain name infringement brought by M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited against Godaddy.com LLC and its Indian subsidiary. While the court acknowledged the Plaintiff's trademark rights, it significantly curtailed the scope of the suit. The mandatory injunction seeking removal of infringing trademarks was rejected due to lack of necessary parties, but the Plaintiff was allowed to proceed regarding alleged liability arising from the Defendants' use of domain suggestion tools.
M/S.Gm Modular Private Limited v.K.Dalpat Singh
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/S. Gm Modular Private Limited seeking the rectification of two rival trademarks, 'GM Pipe' and 'GMware'. The court found that the 1st Respondent adopted these marks with an ulterior motive to ride on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'GM' brand since 1999. Despite arguments regarding differing classes of goods (Class 19 vs Class 17), the court held that the similarity and bad faith adoption justified removing the infringing marks from the Register.
Marico Limited v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Marico Limited successfully challenged the actions of the Trademark Registry in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when removing its registered trademark 'MANJAL'. The court ruled in favor of Marico, holding that the Registrar improperly bypassed statutory requirements by proceeding with rectification despite an ongoing infringement suit. This judgment reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on the Registrar under the Trademarks Act.
Dr.S.Chandralekha / M/s.Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Aravind Chander
The Madras High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant, Dr. Aravind Chander, challenging the jurisdiction and maintainability of a trademark infringement suit brought by Dr. S. Chandralekha and M/s. Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff could establish personal work for gain in Chennai under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the court ruled that the non-joinder of a related entity was not fatal to the suit's maintainability.
Preeti / Kosmos Global v.Suresh R. Jain
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights related to the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts due to alleged passing off and unauthorized use of artistic works and trade dress. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo on 21.03.2022, which was subsequently decreed by the Madras High Court.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights concerning the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were passing off goods using deceptively similar artistic works, trade dress, and color combinations associated with the plaintiff's registered trademark (No. 463167). Despite the initial claims for injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately resolved their dispute by entering into a Joint Compromise Memo dated March 21, 2022.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited alleging infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs, seeking permanent injunction and declaration that the Cease and Desist Notice was unjustifiable. The plaintiff argued that the design was common use in the industry and liable for rectification due to lack of novelty. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous, noting that the registered design's protection period had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited seeking permanent injunction regarding alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification, while also challenging the defendant's Cease and Desist Notice. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registered design rights had expired.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
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.