Plaintiff Favorable
at Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
8 plaintiff favorable decisions from Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
8 cases | Page 1 of 1
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
Suresh Mishra Trading As Sanskriti Yuva Sansthan Society v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Government Of India
Suresh Mishra filed a writ petition seeking an expedited disposal of his pending trademark application, 'Bharat Gaurav,' which had been awaiting consideration since October 2006. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the petitioner's limited prayer by issuing a directive to the Registrar of Trademarks. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the long-pending application within a period of four months from the date of receiving the order, thereby providing relief against administrative delay.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v.Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
The plaintiffs initiated a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, concerning their registered air cooler design. The defendants subsequently filed an application challenging the suit's validity before the High Court. This court addressed the objections raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, and cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the maintainability of the original infringement suit.
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited v.Piyush Shah
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited, setting aside a lower court's decision that dismissed its application under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since Havmor was a registered proprietor and had commenced action with due diligence by issuing a statutory notice, the suit filed by the respondent could not be deemed a 'groundless threat.' This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action by trademark owners to protect their established rights against potential infringement.
Perry Bottling Company v.S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company And Ors.
The plaintiff, Perry Bottling Company, filed a suit for injunction alleging that the respondents were deceiving customers by using a copy of their registered trademark on 'Fruit Beer'. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, finding dissimilarity and arguing that 'Fruit Beer' was not exclusively owned. The High Court overturned this decision, holding that phonetic similarity existed and granting an interim injunction.
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.