FMCG — India Patent Cases
614 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 21 · 614 total
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Balaji Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.
Chutraram Nemaram Gehlot v.Rajaram Magharam Tak
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking ad-interim relief against the Defendant for infringement of registered Trade Marks ('Prem Dulhan') and copyrighted artistic work ('PREM DULHAN GREEN LABEL'). The court found prima facie evidence establishing that the Defendant's use of 'DABANG DULHAN' is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks. Consequently, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Ashok Kumar (unknown person/s)
Unilever Plc. filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against an unknown defendant for the infringement of its registered trade marks (including LAKME and U-Logo), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to its FMCG products. The court granted immediate relief, empowering Additional Special Receivers to seize and seal all infringing goods.
Unilever Plc & Anr. v.Vikas Sachdeva
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc & Anr., filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs in a suit for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was clandestinely marketing and selling cosmetic preparations bearing counterfeit marks (LAKME, LAKME 9 to 5, LAKME EYECONIC) and infringing artworks. The court granted an interim order appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Unilever Plc. v.Ranbir Narang
Unilever Plc. filed an Interim Application concerning the counterfeiting of its goods, which bear multiple registered trade marks (like POND'S, HUL) and copyrighted artistic containers. The court granted ad-interim injunctions against both defendants to prevent further infringement and directed a receiver to seize all infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Rahul Goyal
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc (and its subsidiary Plaintiff no.2), filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Rahul Goyal for infringement of their trademarks (LAKME, U-Logo, etc.), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to cosmetic preparations. The court granted the interim relief, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v.Sarfaraz 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.
M/s. M.S.Milk Product v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.
M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.
M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v.Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. filed a commercial IP suit alleging that Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on its registered designs for snack food products. The core dispute centered on whether the Defendant's product, 'Rumbles', utilized an identical or substantially similar design to Frito-Lay's protected ridge design. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting interim relief.
Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. v.M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trade mark infringement suit filed by Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. against M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. The court held that since the plaintiff had not obtained a registered trademark, but only pending applications, the claim for infringement was premature and lacked cause of action. Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued that neither party was the registered proprietor of their respective marks, leading to the suit's dismissal.
Durga Dairy Ltd. v.M/s.Laxmi Food Products
Durga Dairy Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s.Laxmi Food Products seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning their 'DURGA' brand. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'LAXMI DURGA'. However, despite being granted sufficient time, the plaintiffs failed to file an application to amend the cause title due to a change in company name. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit for default.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited v.M/S.Ribock Industries
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited filed a civil suit against M/S.Ribock Industries alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of Cavinkare's registered trademark 'ZOYO,' copyright violation concerning the 'NYLE' label design, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formally recorded by the Madras High Court and incorporated into the final judgment.
Unilever Plc. v.Punjab Food Products
Unilever Plc. filed suit against Punjab Food Products alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant regarding the use of 'Choco FEAST' on frozen desserts. Furthermore, the Defendant was ordered to deliver up all infringing materials for destruction and agreed to pay Rs. 2 Lacs towards costs/damages.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit in favor of Unilever, and issued perpetual injunctions against the defendant.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing perpetual injunctions against the use of the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' and ordering the destruction of infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trade mark. The court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark on their ice-creams and frozen desserts.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
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.