SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v. Jyoti Devi & Ors.

CS(COMM) 189/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 189/2022
Judge(s)
Jyoti 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 SMC Foods Limited & Anr. vs Jyoti Devi & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS (OS) 1612/1989 (IA Nos.2381/2000, 7387/1999, 13850/2006)

P.M. Diesel Ltd.vsPatel Field Marshall Industries

P.M. Diesel Ltd. filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Patel Field Marshall Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'Field Marshal' mark used on diesel engines. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were operating in Delhi and had violated both trademark and copyright rights. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to provide material facts or documentary evidence of commercial sales within Delhi, which is necessary to establish a valid cause of action and territorial jurisdiction under established legal precedents.

patentCS (COMM) 303/2021; CS(COMM) 303/2021; CS(COMM) 304/2021; I.A. 14208/2023; I.A. 14209/2023

Nokia Technologies OyvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile

The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.

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.

patentCS(COMM) 744/2025

Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr.vsAshok Kumar And Ors

The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.

patentCS(COMM) 1041/2025

Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited & Anr.vsMrs Vishali Maggo & Ors.

Thrillophilia Travel Solutions filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defamation and disparagement of its trademark 'THRILLOPHILIA' by individuals who posted negative comments online. The Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint, preventing the defendants from uploading any new defamatory content using the Plaintiffs' marks or disparaging language on social media platforms. This order also allowed the Plaintiffs to file additional documents in the ongoing commercial suit.

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