Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v. Luxe Moto LLP

2025:KER:32771

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Kerala High Court
Case Number
2025:KER:32771
Decision Date
7 April 2025

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Kerala High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) vs Luxe Moto LLP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 486/2022

NEC CorporationvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs

NEC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717010986) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subsequently listing the case for further hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 727/2024

Triology Solutions Private LimitedvsFlipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.

patentCS(COMM) 179/2024

Campus Activewear LimitedvsJqr Sports(India) Private Limited & Ors

The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in Campus Activewear Limited vs Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and designs related to shoes. The court formally registered the commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial. Furthermore, the urgent application seeking a permanent injunction was listed for further hearing, indicating that the core dispute over copying Campus's brand and design is moving forward.

patentC.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 21/2022

Natco Pharma LimitedvsBristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr

The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.

patentCS (COMM) 483/2020

Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors.vsSarfaraz Khan

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.

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