M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v. M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders

C.S.(Comm. Div) No.118 of 2021

M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright in the associated artistic work and trade dress used on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' and passing off inferior products. Both parties subsequently reached a settlement, leading the Madras High Court to dispose of the captioned suit based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.S.(Comm. Div) No.118 of 2021
Judge(s)
M.Sundar

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited vs M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 106/2021

Merck Sharp And Dohme CorpvsActis Generics Pvt Ltd

The suit involved a dispute over Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin for diabetes treatment. The parties amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated March 15, 2022.

patentFAO (COMM) 60/2025

Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.vsMax Healthcare Institute Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.

patentCS(COMM) 1386/2025

UPL Limited And AnrvsRoyal Agro Tech And Ors

The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement related to agricultural chemicals, specifically concerning an Indian Patent and Trade Mark. The court granted several applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while directing the execution of Local Commissions to inspect infringing products.

patentC.S.(Comm.Div)No.184 of 2024 & OP(TM)Nos. 35 & 47 of 2024

Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private LimitedvsP.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.

patentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4167/2021 [2025:RJ-JD:43682]

M/s. Zonex IndustriesvsKunal Choudhary

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision to stay an infringement lawsuit concerning the 'ZONEX' trademark. The petitioner, M/s. Zonex Industries, challenged the stay, arguing that their trademark was validly registered. However, the court found that since the respondent had initiated rectification proceedings challenging the validity of the registration before the competent forum, the suit for infringement must be stayed under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This ruling reinforces the legal mechanism allowing parties to pause litigation while trademark validity is being determined.

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