Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 34 of 46
Showing 991–1019Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, V. Dhadapani, and S. Ravichandran
This civil suit was filed by S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, alleging infringement of the registered trademark "UDHAIYAM" and copyright violation concerning their oil products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages for passing off. However, before a final judgment on merits, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic (P) Limited v.Veecare Hospitals and others
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic, finding that the defendants infringed upon its registered trademark 'VCare'. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'Vee Care' was phonetically and alphabetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse and ordering the defendants to pay costs.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders
The plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their registered mark 'UDHAIYAM' used for food products like Gingelly Oil. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off. However, during the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel requested permission to withdraw the suit while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case should future infringement occur.
K.Dalpat Singh v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.Dalpat Singh challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on whether opposition proceedings against the trademark 'Gold Mehal' had been validly abandoned. The court found no infirmity in the IPAB's decision, which set aside the initial finding of abandonment and remanded the matter for a full hearing on its merits. This ruling emphasizes procedural correctness in trade mark oppositions.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises Private Limited v.M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises filed a civil suit against M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd., seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks ('Presto INSTANZA') and infringement of their registered design for box type pre-inked rubber stamps. The plaintiff also sought relief related to passing off and surrender of infringing materials. However, before the court could rule on the merits, both parties reached a settlement agreement.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Ms.Seema Rathi
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429) against Ms. Seema Rathi and Balaji Agro. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the court recorded and decreed.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The claims included unauthorized use of the 'XXX' registered trademark, copyright infringement on the product's artistic label/trade dress, and passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
Palson Enterprises v.Kasi Group Of Companies
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Palson Enterprises, upholding the Single Judge's decision to vacate the interim injunction. The court found that Palson had slept over the matter for eight months despite having knowledge of Kasi Group's use of the 'Kasi' name in their theatre business. While acknowledging the appellant's rights under the Trade Marks Act, the court held that issues of prior usage and comparative loss must be determined during a full trial, not at the interim stage.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, which had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing usage since 1984. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited v.M/S.Ribock Industries
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited filed a civil suit against M/S.Ribock Industries alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of Cavinkare's registered trademark 'ZOYO,' copyright violation concerning the 'NYLE' label design, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formally recorded by the Madras High Court and incorporated into the final judgment.
Flsmidth Private Limited v.Mr.S.Balaj Das
Flsmidth Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts regarding alleged copyright infringement in engineering drawings and passing off related to its 'O-SEPARATOR' product. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had adequately established territorial jurisdiction for the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court against foreign respondents. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings demonstrating how the defendants were amenable to the court's jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Crop Life Science Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a suit against Crop Life Science Limited alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429). The parties subsequently reached a compromise and settled their disputes before the Madras High Court.
Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v.BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras)
This civil suit was filed by Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. against BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras) seeking perpetual injunctions for infringing their registered mark 'Eagle' and committing copyright violations. The plaintiffs sought relief including damages, surrender of materials, and a preliminary decree for accounts of profits. However, the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
D. Baskaran v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a dispute over the lapsed registration of the 'TAJMAHAL' trade mark. The petitioner sought directions to compel the Trade Mark Registry to accept his renewal application, which had been refused due to the lapse of time. The court ruled that mere expiration is insufficient for removal; the statutory procedure, specifically issuing Form O-3 notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, must be followed scrupulously before a mark can be removed from the register.
Dart Industries Inc. v.K.K.Plastics
Dart Industries Inc. filed a civil suit against K.K.Plastics and others, alleging infringement of its registered bottle and cap designs (Registration Nos. 221424 and 221425) and passing off related to its 'Aquasafe' brand. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the defendants for manufacturing or selling imitative products. Given that the defendants failed to appear and contest the suit, the Madras High Court passed a summary judgment in favor of Dart Industries Inc., confirming the infringement claims.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was using deceptively similar trade dress, color scheme, and get up with the mark 'SUN F GOLD' on packing material for refined sunflower oil. Although the suit sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits, the parties ultimately entered into a compromise.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Lakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Lakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was deceptively using similar trade dress and color schemes on packaging for refined sunflower oil. However, during the proceedings, both parties reached a compromise. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on the Joint Memo of Compromise, ensuring the defendant would cease using the offending mark.
Celgene Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Celgene Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8064/CHENB/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that their invention—a dissolvable tablet formulation for cancer treatment—had novelty and inventive step over prior art, which consisted of enteric-coated tablets. The High Court found the controller's rejection faulty because it failed to consider the technical advancements presented by the appellant.
M/s.Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg v.Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg filed a civil suit against Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trade marks, including 'GEDORE', and copyright violation concerning the 'GEDORE Device' artistic works. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off and IP infringement. However, before the final judgment, both parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Bafna Biotech
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Bafna Biotech alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the 'ZINCOVIT' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA on pharmaceutical products. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise.
M/s.Bombay Pen Depot v.M/s.Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/s. Bombay Pen Depot and M/s. Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd by accepting a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC). Under the terms, the Plaintiff assigned its registered trademarks (PENTONIC) to the First Defendant for a consideration of INR 15 lakhs. In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw oppositions against the defendant's trademark applications and cease using the mark after a specified date.
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.