Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 36 of 45
Showing 1051–1079M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited. v.M/s.S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise in an infringement suit concerning the bottle design and label color scheme for gingelly oil. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably, leading the court to pass a compromise decree. Key terms included the first defendant voluntarily amending its label by enlarging the logo and altering other features, agreeing to destroy remaining unused labels within three months, and ceasing deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's product.
M.Ponnusamy (Sole Proprietor of Sasi Match Works) v.Latha Match Industries
M.Ponnusamy, representing Sasi Match Works, filed a suit against Latha Match Industries and others alleging infringement of his registered trademark 'GOPAL' and copyright in its artistic label. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendants allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'GOKUL'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendant, Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('ULTRA') and committed passing off. The court held that since both parties operate in the same market (tiles) and target similar consumers, the use of a deceptively similar mark was unacceptable. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, orders for destruction of infringing materials, and directions for accounting of profits.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., finding that the defendant, Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('Apollo', 'Apollo Pharmacy') and committed passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks or services. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded costs and directed the defendant to surrender all infringing materials and render accounts of profits.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using similar trade marks and trading styles. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.R.Shankar (Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food)
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against R.Shankar for passing off. Despite the defendant submitting an affidavit stating they had closed their business, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunctive relief under summary judgment proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade names and trading styles in the food service industry.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thiru A.Aboobacker
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thiru A.Aboobacker. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori. The suit, which was initially filed for passing off, resulted in a summary judgment decreeing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. This decision protects the established goodwill of the plaintiff's 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' brand against deceptive use by the defendant.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the 'Thalappakatti Biriyani' trade mark. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, the plaintiff withdrew the suit upon instruction from their client. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off their trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'Thalappakatti' brand, M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas filed suit against Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food alleging passing off and seeking permanent injunction. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit entirely. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the litigation as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The plaintiff had initially sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles. However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles related to biryani products. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal by the court.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Lyca Productions v.J.Manimaran
M/s. Lyca Productions filed an appeal seeking an injunction against J. Manimaran (and others) for allegedly infringing on their film title 'KARU', which they claimed to have registered with a Film Producers Guild in 2011. The core dispute revolved around whether this guild registration conferred exclusive rights over the title, especially when the opposing party had also invested heavily and was readying its release. The Madras High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, ruling that such guild registration does not grant exclusive use of the title without statutory backing.
M/s.Power Soaps Limited v.M/s. C M Detergent
M/s. Power Soaps Limited filed a suit against M/s. C M Detergent alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('DK' and 'POWER') and copyright violation concerning the use of deceptively similar marks on detergent wrappers. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounts of profits. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit, leading the court to dismiss the case.
Aquapump Industries & Aquasub Engineering v.Texmo Industries
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement reached between Aquapump Industries, Aquasub Engineering (Plaintiffs), and Texmo Industries (Defendant) regarding trademark infringement. The original suit sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of the 'TEXMO' mark on various pump products and claimed damages/accounts of profits. Both parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading the court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Mediation Agreement dated February 21, 2017.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark. However, before any substantive hearing on the merits of the infringement claim could take place, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Mohammed Mohideen (representing M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece) v.M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade
The Madras High Court dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece against M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade, despite allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted a significant delay in filing the suit after receiving cease and desist notices from the defendant. Consequently, the judge found it inappropriate to grant an interim injunction at that stage, allowing the main suit to proceed for trial.
K.Ganesh Nadar / M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. / K.Ganesh Nadar
This Madras High Court judgment addresses two cross-suits concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and groundless threats related to the brand 'XTRA' in the FMCG sector. The court noted that the dispute was referred to mediation, which proved fruitful. Consequently, a common decree was passed based on a memo of compromise dated 17.02.2017. Under this agreement, the defendant committed to stopping the use of the infringing label and adopting an amended version moving forward.
M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited v.M/S.KTC Ventures
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise settlement between M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited and M/S.KTC Ventures regarding trademark infringement of 'LASSI HOUSE'. The parties agreed to drop the suit in exchange for specific terms, including a permanent injunction against passing off, payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the defendant, and mandatory changes to the defendant's branding (displaying 'KTC VENTURES' below 'Lassi House').
M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited v.M/s.Balarama'S Incense Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'WOOD' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered word mark 'WOODS'. The court affirmed that since both marks were used for identical goods (incense sticks) within the same trade channel, deception was inevitable. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the surrender of infringing stock, and directing the defendant to render accounts.
M/s.Aloha India v.Brilliant Academy
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit against Brilliant Academy alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'ALOHA' and copyright violation concerning its education books and study materials. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages for passing off, and surrender of infringing stock. Although the suit qualified to be heard by the Commercial Division under relevant statutes, the plaintiff subsequently requested withdrawal.
M & K Technologies v.Hi-Tech Carbons and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
M & K Technologies filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's order cancelling design registration no. 190949. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court due to the appellant failing to appear and filing a memo stating there were no instructions.
A.Rajendran v.Thenandal Studios Limited
The appeal was filed by A.Rajendran against an order dismissing his application for injunction, which sought to restrain respondents from using the title 'Mersal' (an adopted version of 'Merrasalaitan'). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the subject title had acquired any goodwill or reputation.
Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
Muthukani Diravidakani & Rakkappan Muthukani (Trading as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips) v.K.S.Raja, The Registrar of Trade Marks, and The Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioners, who trade as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips, to file a Review Petition against an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2013. The court granted this permission and further directed the IPAB not to strictly enforce the limitation period if the review petition was filed within two weeks of the High Court's order. This procedural relief allows the petitioners to challenge the original decision regarding their trade mark registration.
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.