FMCG — India Patent Cases
614 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 21 · 614 total
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited v.Saatvik Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Bikanervala Foods against Saatvik Foods, concerning the continued use of Bikanervala's concept and intellectual property after the termination of a franchise agreement. While the core dispute is subject to ongoing arbitration, the court issued interim directions. The respondents were specifically ordered to remove photographs installed during the franchise period and modify their menu format to differentiate it from Bikanervala's established standards.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Sh. Amar Tulsiyan v.Harshil Jayeshbhai Shah
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing his registered and adopted trademarks (NIINE, NINE, 9) used in food and personal hygiene products. The court found that the defendant's adoption and intended use of 'Nine Plus' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks and constituted infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vim Industries Ltd
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an interim application seeking continuation and reinforcement of an exparte ad-interim order. The court found that a case for passing off was made out, specifically concerning the use of marks VIM, SURF, and the Splat device in relation to cleaning products.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. The plaintiffs sought permission to amend their pleadings to identify and join another party involved in manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit cosmetic preparations. The court allowed the amendment and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.New Parle Ice Cream
The suit was filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against New Parle Ice Cream concerning an IP matter. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was formally recorded and accepted by the Bombay High Court on September 28, 2022.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Pan Parag India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition filed by M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd against Pan Parag India Limited & Anr. The court granted the relief based on an undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated they had no intention to use the impugned registered trademark 'GOLDIE' in their trade business of PAN MASALA. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel and expunge the registration within six weeks.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Charulbhai Patel Prop. Business under name of Pacific Paints Industries.
The applicant (Asian Paints Ltd.) filed an interim application seeking further ad-interim relief in a commercial IP suit against the defendants. The court noted that previous ad-interim relief had been granted, and since the defendant was served, the matter was placed on the board for 'further ad-interim relief' on a subsequent date.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd. v.Kothari Products Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.
Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. v.Ekta Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint, enabling them to include claims of trademark infringement alongside existing passing off claims. This amendment was necessitated by a new device mark registration granted during the pendency of the suit. The court permitted both parties to file amended pleadings, ensuring the litigation could proceed with the updated scope of IP rights.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Lv Bhavani Sankar
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Lv Bhavani Sankar. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FREEDOM' by the Defendant's use of 'FREEDAY' for refined sunflower oil. Crucially, the Court noted that the Defendant's mark had previously been cancelled by the IPAB due to deceptive similarity. Given the near-identical packaging and the concern over food safety standards, the court found a prima facie case existed, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Vikas
This interim application sought to continue and grant further ad-interim relief against the defendant, Vikas. The court reviewed the findings of the Court Receiver regarding additional infringing goods and permitted amendments to the plaint. Consequently, the court ordered the continuation of the exparte ad-interim injunctions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an interim application seeking permission to amend its suit plaint and interim application. The plaintiff sought to implead Mr. Kuldeep Singh, who was identified as the owner manufacturing counterfeit detergent preparations based on a Court Receiver's report. The court permitted the amendments and continued the existing ad-interim injunction.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Pacific Paints & Anr.
The court heard an interim application filed by Asian Paints Ltd. against Pacific Paints & Anr. The court noted that the initial exparte ad-interim order was in place, and subsequent amendments were permitted based on a Court Receiver's report regarding additional infringing goods. The court decided to continue the existing ad-interim relief for a further period.
Sh Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v.State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order rectifying entries in the Trade Marks Register concerning two trademarks (No. 1116678 and No. 2091984). Following mediation settlement, the court restored M/s Rattan Milk Specialities Private Limited as the original proprietor of TM No. 1116678, cancelling previous entries in favor of Nirmal Kumar. The court also rectified the entry related to TM No. 2094984. While the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, the primary focus was on correcting the trademark ownership records based on the settlement terms.
Health And Glow Private Limited v.Vineet Chugh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Health And Glow Private Limited against Vineet Chugh. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'H&G' for cosmetic and personal care products. Given that Health And Glow demonstrated a strong prima facie case—backed by extensive market presence, high turnover, and registered rights—the court restrained the defendant from using the identical mark until further hearing, preventing irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s business.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Surjit Dairy Products
The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Patola Industries v.Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the parties, Patola Industries and Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors, into mediation regarding trademark disputes. The petitioner had submitted that they ceased using their trademark, while the respondent sought a permanent injunction against the use of similar marks for namkeens and snacks. Despite differing views on settlement, the court prioritized resolving the dispute amicably by mandating appearance at the Mediation Centre.
Shyam Sunder v.Pushpa Devi And Ors.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a complex dispute over the usage rights of the registered trademark 'Shehnai' for edible oils. The appeal, filed by Shyam Sunder (the defendant), challenged the lower court's decision which granted co-usage rights to the plaintiffs (Pushpa Devi and Ors.). After examining evidence regarding prior use, partnership history, and consumer perception, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ultimately found that both parties had established usage rights, thereby upholding the principle of shared or concurrent trademark use in this specific context.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Mohit Varshney Proprietor, M/S Raj Food Products v.Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd.
In a complex cross-suit involving competing snack food brands, the Delhi High Court addressed trademark disputes between M/s Raj Food Products ('DECY') and Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd. ('LACY'). While acknowledging that the Plaintiff (Serveshwar) had prior registration of 'LACY', the court sought to balance interests by directing the Defendant (Raj Food) not to expand its product line under 'DECY' until further decision on injunctions. Crucially, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable resolution for both trademark and packaging disputes.
Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Mukesh
The applicants filed an interim application seeking the extension and granting of ad-interim injunctions against the defendants. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods in the FMCG industry using counterfeit marks, pirated artwork, or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (VIM) and prior used trademarks (U-Logo, SURF/SURF EXCEL).
Marico Limited v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Marico Limited successfully challenged the actions of the Trademark Registry in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when removing its registered trademark 'MANJAL'. The court ruled in favor of Marico, holding that the Registrar improperly bypassed statutory requirements by proceeding with rectification despite an ongoing infringement suit. This judgment reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on the Registrar under the Trademarks Act.
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.