Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

KPPNair 1 NMS 2191/2012

The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited against MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd., finding that the abbreviation 'M & M' enjoys protection as a registered trademark. The court issued a comprehensive injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned marks, similar domain names (like www.mandmstores.in), or passing off their goods and services as those of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was mandated to delete 'MNM' from its corporate name within four weeks.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
KPPNair 1 NMS 2191/2012
Judge(s)
S.J. Kathawalla

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.S.No.804 of 2007

Karthikeyan And CompanyvsM/s.New Brilliant Publications

Karthikeyan And Company filed a civil suit against M/s.New Brilliant Publications alleging both copyright infringement and passing off related to their Tamil notes. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, surrender of infringing copies, and damages for the unauthorized reproduction and use of their work. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved the court seeking permission to withdraw the suit due to changes in school syllabus and the defendant discontinuing active business.

patent(T)CMA(PT)/117 /2023

The Chinese University of Hong KongvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

The Chinese University of Hong Kong filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.

patentTRANSFER PETITION (C) NO(S). 1983 OF 2025

Atomberg Technologies Private LimitedvsEureka Forbes Limited

Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.

patentCS(COMM) 361/2018& IAs 4575/2005, 8848/2018, 15369/2019

Nadeem Majid OomerbhoyvsSh. Gautam Tank And Ors

The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 109/2024

Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors.vsSeene Trader & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.

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