Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 35 of 45
Showing 1021–1049Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Issac Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods / M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P)Ltd. v.Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Aachi Spices and Foods filed a civil suit alleging that Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd was infringing upon its copyright and passing off its brand, 'AACHI RAGI FLOUR.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of similar marks on ragi flour products. After establishing jurisdiction and presenting ex-parte evidence, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting injunctive reliefs and directing the surrender of infringing materials. Furthermore, given the defendant's failure to appear despite being duly served, the court awarded significant compensatory costs.
Metco Polymers Private Limited v.M/s.AnB Healthcare Products
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs subsequently moved an application to withdraw the suit.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v.Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)
This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.
M/s.MRF Limited v.Multi Race Force Lubricants Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. MRF Limited, finding that the defendant's use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court applied the 'average purchaser' test, concluding that the overall similarity between the marks and packaging was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a perpetual injunction restraining further misuse of the mark.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited v.Netsweeper Inc.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited filed a suit against Netsweeper Inc. alleging passing off and unauthorized use of its registered trademark, 'NETSWEEPER'. The plaintiff, based in Canada, claimed that the defendants were wrongfully associating themselves with its brand to sell similar software services. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, confirming the original injunction granted in favor of Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited.
Commscope Inc. Of North Carolina v.Union Of India
Commscope Inc. approached the Madras High Court seeking rectification of errors in its trademark registration certificate (No. 1380719). The petitioner argued that despite multiple representations, the Trademark Registry failed to issue the corrected certificate. The court intervened, directing the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, to correct the error and issue a fresh Registration Certificate, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
The Madras High Court modified existing interim injunctions in a dispute between Vennila Clothing Company and M/s.Arrs Silks regarding trademark and trade dress infringement. The court partially allowed the applications seeking to vacate the previous injunctions, establishing an interim arrangement where the defendants could use specified changed trade dresses for a period of eleven months. This decision allows the main suit to proceed while providing temporary relief to both parties.
Pradeep Cholayil & Cholayil Private Limited v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited
The Madras High Court confirmed the existing interim injunction in favor of Pradeep Cholayil and Cholayil Private Limited against Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MYSOAP' was deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trademark 'MYSOP' for cosmetic soaps, constituting infringement and passing off. The injunction was confirmed post-contest and ordered to operate for a period of one year, allowing the main suit to proceed expeditiously.
M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v.Ashok Kumar Sethi
The main suit involved a claim by M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass against Ashok Kumar Sethi for copyright infringement and passing off related to their Henna products bearing the mark 'AMIN'S'. The defendant filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd v.Ganesh Industries
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Ganesh Industries alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark (MAXX), copyright violation in packaging art, and passing off related to detergent products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for these illegal activities. Both parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise.
Novartis AG v.Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited
Novartis AG filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin. The defendant, Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited, contested the claim by stating it neither manufactures nor intends to manufacture the patented drug. By mutual consent, the court disposed of the suit, granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Udayam Marketing
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd., against M/s.Udayam Marketing regarding trademark infringement and passing off of 'UDHAIYAM'. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using an identical or deceptively similar mark for food products like Asafoetida Powder. Furthermore, given the decade-long litigation period and the defendant's non-appearance, the court awarded substantial compensatory costs to the plaintiffs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using a similar trade mark. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit with the court's permission, leading to its dismissal.
Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kyorin Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its tablet patent application (No.5360/CHENP/2010), which cited lack of inventive step and non-patentability. The court found that since a process patent for manufacturing the tablet had already been granted, the respondent was estopped from rejecting the product patent on grounds of lacking inventive steps. However, the matter regarding Section 3(e) non-patentability was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the registered trademark 'CFA'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Although the court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's counsel failing to provide instructions.
The Society Of Certified Public Acountants v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Society of Certified Public Accountants filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CpA'. The court initially determined that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it involved intellectual property rights relating to trademarks. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default because the counsel on record for the plaintiff submitted that they had no instructions from the plaintiff.
B.Vivekananthan v.B.Anandan Trading as Anand's MOONRAKERS RESTAURANT & B.Anandan Trading as Anand's Moonrakers
This Madras High Court case involved a trademark infringement suit filed by B.Vivekananthan against B.Anandan regarding the use of the 'MOONRAKERS' mark in restaurant and hospitality services. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for both trademark infringement and passing off, along with delivery up of infringing materials. Ultimately, the parties reached a joint compromise memo on April 30, 2021, which was recorded by the court, leading to a decree based on mutual settlement.
M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to 'FLYGUARD' (e-Passport/Smartcard). Despite arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court dismissed the suit due to the continuous non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel reporting 'No Instructions'.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to the e-Passport (Smartcard) invention, known as 'FLYGUARD' or 'TCS e-Passport Solution'. Despite multiple hearings and court directions, the plaintiff failed to appear or file necessary affidavits, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Naseer Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Naseer Apollo Pharmacy. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Apollo Pharmacy' was deceptive and infringed upon Apollo's registered trademarks across multiple classes, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, ordered the surrender of all infringing materials, and directed the defendant to render accounts of profits.
M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private Limited v.Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.
G.Thirumoorthy v.Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering
G.Thirumoorthy filed a suit against Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering seeking permanent injunctions for infringing his registered trade mark 'KALYANI COVERING' and copyrighted artistic work, as well as passing off. The plaintiff sought to prevent the use of the deceptively similar mark 'KALYANI GOLD COVERING' on gold covering ornaments. However, during the proceedings, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit confirming the survival of the cause of action. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
New Hope Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Pioneer Bakeries (P.) Ltd.
New Hope Industries challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to rectify its trademarks, Milka Wonder Cake. However, before the Madras High Court could rule on the validity of the marks, both parties entered into a Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated March 26, 2018. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn, resolving the dispute outside of judicial decree.
Krishnamachari Ramu v.Srinivasa Raja
The petitioners challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order that revoked their patents (No. 193899 and 200285) concerning a novel method for preparing low glycemic sweets using Levulose/Fructose. The High Court found that the dispute required intricate scientific proof regarding the elimination of browning reactions, leading it to set aside the revocation order and remand the matter back to the IPAB.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the rejection of its Patent Application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant contended that the rejection order failed to objectively test the application or discuss relevant prior art (Exhibit D1).
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
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.