Apparel — India Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Levi Strauss And Company v.Umesh Chauhan
Levi Strauss And Company filed a suit against Umesh Chauhan and Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa alleging infringement of their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to clothing and jeans. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient positive evidence to corroborate the local commissioner's report, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Under Armour, Inc v.Pro-Train Sports Llp & Ors
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Under Armour against Pro-Train Sports LLP, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical trade and business operations, including the use of similar logos (a bull), the court opted not to grant the exemption. Instead, it referred the matter to Pre-Institution Mediation, setting a date for January 15, 2025.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark 'Levi's', copyright, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel. The court found that defendant no.1 was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing counterfeit products, leading to a decree for damages.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Sumit Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling goods bearing falsified "Levi's" marks. The court found that the defendants were engaged in infringing activities and remained absent from court proceedings. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Suffee Garments
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling shirts and apparels bearing falsified trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse logo') and deceptively similar designs (Arcuate Stitching) of the plaintiff. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement and passing off.
Levi Straus & Company v.Sunil Yadav
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Sunil Yadav for the clandestine manufacturing, storing, and selling of jeans and accessories bearing falsified trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design'. The court found that the defendant was blatantly infringing the registered trademarks and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Mehra
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement and passing off against the defendants for manufacturing and selling apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'Levi's'. The court found that the defendants were deliberately copying the plaintiff's marks with dishonest intent.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Rajender Kumar
The plaintiff, adidas AG through its Indian subsidiary, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'adidas', 'three bars', '3-Strips', and 'Trefoil'. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Anwar Ali
Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary filed a suit against Mr. Anwar Ali for infringing their registered trademarks ("adidas", "three bars", etc.) and copyrights on shoes and accessories. The court found that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, and selling inferior quality goods using deceptively similar marks, causing damage to Adidas' reputation.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shivani Label
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shivani Label alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's claims substantiated by un-rebutted testimony and documents.
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.