Mixed Decisions
106 cases | Page 3 of 4
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Madras High Court upheld the interim injunction granted against the defendant for infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress related to 'Good Day' biscuits. The court found that the adoption of an identical blue color scheme by the competitor, Sunfeast, amounted to passing off and confusing the public. However, in a concession to the defense, the court permitted the existing stock of the offending product (23.7 tonnes) to be sold.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Madras High Court upheld the interim injunction granted against the defendant for infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress related to 'Good Day' biscuits. The court found that the adoption of an identical blue color scheme by the competitor, Sunfeast, amounted to passing off and confusing the public. However, in a concession to the defense, the court permitted the existing stock of the offending product (23.7 tonnes) to be sold.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
T.G.Arumugam v.T.G.Harigopal
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of the trademark 'UMBRELLA BAND' registration. The court noted that the dispute had been resolved through a joint memorandum of compromise, which was subsequently decreed by a lower court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Trademark Registry to allow applications filed under Form TM-P and Form TM-M, thereby officially recording the petitioner as a joint proprietor alongside the respondent. Furthermore, the registry was mandated to implement the agreed geographical division of territory.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Home Box Office, Inc. v.Danish Salim; The Registrar of Trademarks
In this matter concerning trademark cancellation, Home Box Office challenged an entry in the Register of Trademarks. However, the court noted that the registered proprietor of the impugned mark had subsequently agreed to cancel the registration. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to complete the necessary steps for cancellation and removal of the entry within a specified timeframe.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased) & others v.1/183 & others
This case involved complex disputes among the partners and legal heirs of a newspaper publishing firm, Dinamalar. The core issue revolved around the status and ownership of the firm's trademark following its dissolution. The Madras High Court addressed several related civil suits and original applications concerning partnership rights and intellectual property.
Ceat Limited v.Amjad Khan Trading As Bharat Traders
In a matter concerning the cancellation of the trademark 'CEART', the Madras High Court disposed of the petition based on a settlement reached in a connected civil suit. The court noted that the first respondent had agreed to take steps for the mark's removal. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge Trademark No. 3871567 from the register within four weeks.
Rajam Industries Private Limited v.Lakshmi Industries
In this trademark rectification case, Rajam Industries sought the Madras High Court to cancel a registration held by Lakshmi Industries. The petitioner argued that the request for cancellation should follow prescribed legal procedures rather than informal communication with the Trademark Registry. After noting that the respondent had initiated steps toward cancellation and agreed to undertake the necessary formal actions, the court closed the original petition.
Trademark Address v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging procedural delays in a trademark opposition case. While the petitioner initially sought to overturn an order rejecting an extension for evidence, the court noted that subsequent events had rendered the original petitions infructuous. Since the petitioner subsequently filed a rectification petition against the registered mark, the court disposed of the initial writs but directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and decide the pending rectification application.
T.G.Arumugam v.T.G.Harigopal
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of the trademark 'UMBRELLA BAND' registration. The court noted that the dispute had been resolved through a joint memorandum of compromise, which was subsequently decreed by a lower court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Trademark Registry to allow applications filed under Form TM-P and Form TM-M, thereby officially recording the petitioner as a joint proprietor alongside the respondent. Furthermore, the registry was mandated to implement the agreed geographical division of territory.
M.Raja Mohamed v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a long-pending writ petition filed by M.Raja Mohamed seeking the restoration of his trademark, 'RAJA SUPARI.' The court did not delve into the merits of the case but issued a Mandamus directing the Registrar of Trademarks to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. This order effectively moves the matter forward for substantive consideration by the Trademark Registry.
M/s.Fair Beat Herbals Cosmetics Private Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging trademark registration proceedings involving 'Fair Beat'. The court noted that objections had been raised against the application, and an inquiry was pending before the Trademark Registry. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to conduct a thorough enquiry, ensuring all parties are given an opportunity to participate, and to pass final orders on the merits as quickly as possible.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd challenged the Controller General of Patents' order that deemed its patent application, relating to novel Cholecystokini Receptor Ligands, as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the abandonment was based on procedural failures and clerical errors by agents, not due to lack of interest in the invention. The Madras High Court acknowledged the violation of timelines but emphasized principles of natural justice, ultimately restoring the application for fresh consideration.
S.Sudhakar / Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd. v.Priya Krishnakumar / Krishnakumar
This Madras High Court case addresses a complex dispute involving alleged infringement of registered trademarks and copyright in the food product sector. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks ('UDAYA MASALA' vs 'UDHAIYAM') and infringing on the artistic work/logo associated with their masala powders. While the suit sought various injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, the judgment provided a preliminary decree addressing these claims.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited v.M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited filed a suit against M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries alleging infringement of its well-known trademark, "O TVS TYRES," and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and account of profits. However, the court ultimately decreed the suit only for the specific prayers related to permanent injunctions after receiving an undertaking from the defendants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.