Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v. Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.

CS(COMM) 350/2020 / IA No. 5120/2021

The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 350/2020 / IA No. 5120/2021
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

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 Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd vs Amul-Franchise.in & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(OS) No. 1459/2007 (I.A. Nos. 11230/2007, 13618/2008 & 13619/2008)

Rana SteelsvsRan India Steels Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.

patentCS(COMM) 97/2022 & I.A.2301/2022, I.A.12853/2022, I.A.12858/2022

Star Sintered Products Ltd.vsKaran Bhutani

The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 63/2024

Syngenta Crop Protection AgvsAssistant Controller Of Patents

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court allowed exemption and set notice, granting both parties time to file their respective written synopses or rejoinders.

patentCS(COMM) 777/2025

Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private LimitedvsTriveniprime Industries Private Limited & Ors.

The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by Triveni Household Items Manufacturers against Triveniprime Industries Private Limited concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions regarding its trademarks, 'TRIVENI' and 'TRIVENI ALMIRAH'. While the court granted procedural reliefs such as extensions for filing fees and leave to file additional documents, it also directed that the matter proceed with an interim injunction hearing on August 20, 2025.

patentCS(COMM) 1045/2024

Kluster Llc & Anr.vsMr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.

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