Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. Shubhom Juneja

CS(COMM) 277/2023

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 277/2023
Decision Date
5 February 2024

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs Shubhom Juneja is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 118/2024 & I.A. Nos. 33856/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2024 & I.A. No. 33859/2024 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2024 & I.A. No. 33861/2024 & 33862/2024

Pernod Ricard India Private LimitedvsJagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.

patentT.C.(A) No.3709 of 1997 (Original appeal)

S.P.S. Jayam And Co.vsThe Registrar, Tamilnadu Taxation

This case addressed whether payments received by S.P.S. Jayam And Co. for allowing Tvl.Muthu Agencies to use their trademarks constituted royalty or sale consideration under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner argued it was merely a temporary right to enjoy the mark, exempting the payment from tax. However, the Madras High Court held that since the permission granted was unrestricted for a period, it amounted to a transfer of an intangible property right—the trademark—which falls within the wide definition of 'goods' and is therefore taxable.

patentCS(COMM) 475/2021

PFIZER INCvsNATCO PHARMA LIMITED

The plaintiffs (Pfizer Inc) informed the court that the present matter relates to Patent No. 218291 and is connected to several other pending cases involving the same patent. The court directed that the present matter be listed along with these related matters before the Judge In-charge on September 30, 2021.

patentFAO(OS)(COMM) Nos. 22&23/2023

Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.vsTimab NL B.V. / Kaba Infratech Pvt Ltd

In a significant settlement, the Delhi High Court accepted assurances from Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. that they would cease using the disputed mark 'GeoCrete,' replacing it with 'Alpave.' The company agreed to withdraw its existing trademark registration (TM No.3392787) and all related pending applications within four weeks. This resolution effectively settled the core trademark dispute between Shamrock Geoscience and Timab NL B.V./Kaba Infratech, allowing both parties to move forward while leaving technical know-how claims open for separate litigation.

patentOA/16/2017/Pt/Kol (IPDPTA/4/2023)

Pharma Mar S AvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

This opposition matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call