Google Llc v. Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors

CS(COMM) 592/2018

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(COMM) 592/2018
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google Llc vs Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentW. P. No.1518 (W) of 2019

Merck Sharp & Dohme CorpvsUnion Of India

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The petitioner argued that the appeal mechanism was practically unavailable due to the absence of a technical member, and further contended that the rejection of their patent application, which followed a voluntary divisional filing, was erroneous as it failed to consider curative measures.

patentCS(COMM) 253/2021

Kent Ro Systems Pvt LtdvsPushpendra Yadav

Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging design and trademark infringement against Pushpendra Yadav and others, specifically targeting water purifiers sold on Flipkart. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants' products infringed their registered Design No. 219309 for a water purifier and used deceptively similar marks like AQUA GRAND+ infringing KENT GRAND+. The Delhi High Court allowed the interim application, finding prima facie evidence of both design piracy and trademark infringement.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 425/2022, I.A. 3697/2024 (and related cases)

Fiitjee Ltd.vsBrahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.

patent(T)OP(TM)/174/2023

Mankind Pharma Limitedvs4 Square Pharmaceuticals Of ... and The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking the removal of Trademark No. 1803072 (XYDI). The court noted that the last registration for this trademark had expired on April 6, 2019. Since the underlying issue—the status of the mark's validity—had changed, the petition was deemed infructuous. Mankind Pharma was granted leave to re-apply should the trademark be restored.

patentCS(COMM) 363/2024

The Food MastersvsV G And Group & Ors.

In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'THE FOOD MASTER', the Delhi High Court suspended an existing ex parte injunction. The suspension was granted to allow the court to comprehensively assess conflicting claims regarding prior use and senior adoption by both parties. The court directed both sides to place crucial documents, including evidence of user status from 2013 and details of a related suit filed in Faridabad, on record before proceeding.

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