India Trademark Cases
2,066 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 69 · 2,066 total
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. filed an intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging the Single Judge's order that had set aside the Registrar's rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication of the mark under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench held that since the application had not reached the stage of acceptance, advertisement under Section 20 could not be directed, and the authorities under the statute were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation and removal of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 in Class 30 registered in the name of Pradeep Kumar K.R. Before the matter could be heard on merits, both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026. The Madras High Court recorded the settlement and disposed of the petition, with the compromise memo forming part of the order, and passed no order as to costs.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a commercial suit and a connected rectification petition against Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. and others concerning the trademark 'SOMI-MB' (Application No. 5982177 in Class 5). The parties settled their disputes through mediation, executing a Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Alkem by consent and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and expunge the impugned mark within four weeks. The plaintiff waived its claims for damages and costs, and was granted a full refund of court fee under the amended Court Fees Act.
M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr
This case concerns the execution of a decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and others restraining the Judgment Debtors from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.07.2026, under which the Judgment Debtors agreed to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Decree Holders. The Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, disposed of the execution petition in terms of the MoU, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited in court, and directed the Judgment Debtors to pay the remaining Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr.
This order pertains to an execution petition arising from a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 346/2018) where Aktiebolaget Volvo obtained a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.07.2026. The Court recorded the settlement, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited by the Judgment Debtors, and directed payment of an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
KRBL Limited v.Sri Krishna Agencies & Others
KRBL Limited, the proprietor of the well-known registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' for rice and food products (registered since 1993 under Class 30), filed a suit against Sri Krishna Agencies and its partners for infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' adoption and use of the trademark 'MADRAS GATE' for identical goods was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'INDIA GATE' mark. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction, delivery up, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of Rs. 1.00 lakh along with costs.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Petitioner, a franchisee of Respondent No. 1 since 2022, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 relating to a franchise outlet at Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents supplied defective equipment, restricted sales, suspended the outlet from its e-commerce platform, and failed to ensure adequate supply of requisite material. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and listed the matter for further proceedings on 30.09.2026.
Kitty Industries Private Limited v.Kumar Audyogik Vikas Private Limited
This is an interim order in a commercial suit concerning alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'KITTY'. The defendant, who claims to hold a registered copyright in 'KITTI' and a registered trademark in 'KITTIKA', raised objections including that the plaintiff does not manufacture noodles and that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that cause of action arose within Delhi because the defendant's product was ordered online. The defendant was granted leave to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint.
Nobel Hygiene Limited v.Corona Remedies Limited
This appeal challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-02), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS (COMM.) 443/2026, restraining Nobel Hygiene Limited from using the trademark 'B-FIT/B-Fit' in relation to pharmaceuticals and related goods claimed by Corona Remedies Limited. The appellant contended that the injunction was granted arbitrarily without being heard, despite evidence of its long-standing use of the 'B-FIT' mark since 01.04.2014. The Delhi High Court suspended the impugned order, directed the appellant to file its reply to the injunction application within one week, and remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh hearing.
Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This is an intra-court appeal before the Delhi High Court arising from a trade mark proceeding. The appellant, Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot, challenged the appointment of the Hearing Officer who heard his trade mark application, contending that the officer was not duly appointed as required under Section 3(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Court allowed the condonation of approximately 206 days' delay by Respondent No. 1 in filing an affidavit of compliance, took the affidavit on record, and adjourned the matter to 15 December 2026 for further hearing.
Zee Learn Limited v.Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Zee Learn Limited filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust for continued use of its registered trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and proprietary MLZS Program after termination of their licensing agreements. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the termination and granted partial relief, restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks and proprietary programme and directing disclosure of financial records. However, the Court rejected prayers for revival of the contractual relationship, a bank guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Ronit Kumar Trading As M/S Pliza Gems & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dealt with two interlocutory applications in a commercial suit. Defendant No.6 sought condonation of a 72-day delay in filing its written statement, while the plaintiff sought leave to bring on record Legal Proceeding Certificates pertaining to its trademarks. The Court granted the plaintiff time to file a reply to the condonation application and issued notice on the plaintiff's application, with both matters re-notified before the Joint Registrar on 11 September 2026.
Awl Agri Business Limited & Anr v.Union Of India & Ors
AWL Agri Business Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 17.07.2026 and an accompanying letter issued by food safety authorities, which effectively treated its product 'Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil' as a 'non-compliant product' under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 and the Labelling Regulations, 2020. The petitioner contended that enforcement actions, including stoppage of sale orders in Jharkhand, were taken without following the procedure under the FSS Act or affording an effective hearing. The court addressed the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that since the impugned communications were issued by authorities situated in Delhi, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
State v.Sumit Verma
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 191/2019 registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, based on a complaint by Sh. Suresh Kaushik, an employee of MS Protect IP Solutions LLP, alleging that a raid at the house of accused Sumit Verma revealed a Dell computer, pen-drive, and bar code printer containing counterfeit MRP stickers of HAL and TMC companies, leading to charges under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, who was the most material witness, turned hostile and failed to identify the accused, causing the prosecution's case to collapse. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kind Patches Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a commercial suit against Kind Patches Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from using the trademarks/trade name 'KIND PATCHES'/'KINDPATCHES PRIVATE LIMITED' or any marks identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered 'KIND'/'MANKIND' trademarks and KIND formative marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and amicably settled their disputes by executing a Settlement Agreement dated 24.08.2026. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, with the Defendant agreeing to withdraw its trademark applications, and the Plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
State v.Rahul Arora
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 645/2021 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi, alleging that accused Rahul Arora and Vikas Yadav were dealing in counterfeit products bearing falsified marks of M/s Luk Products and Schaeffler KG, in violation of Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, Sh. Ajit Kumar (employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd.), turned hostile during trial and failed to identify the accused persons, and the case property was destroyed in a fire near PS Kashmere Gate on 31.05.2026. The Delhi District Court acquitted both accused persons, holding that the prosecution's foundational pillars had collapsed and that no admissible evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Vinod Kapur v.The State Of Karnataka
The petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kapur, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 5/2022 registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 193, 463, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC, arising from a dispute over a Will dated 09.09.2005 executed by the petitioner's father. During the pendency of the petition, the parties—siblings—reached a comprehensive settlement before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in Company Petition No. 43/BB/2021, which was disposed of as settled on 21.04.2026. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, holding that continuation would be futile given the settlement.
Ramesh Chand v.T.T.Industries
This is a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 465/2018) before the Delhi High Court where the defendant, T.T.Industries, filed I.A. 5608/2026 seeking permission under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to place additional documents on record. The defendant sought to introduce an abstract from the Trade Marks Journal recognizing its 'TT' trademark as a 'well-known' mark, along with a certified copy of a 2004 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff objected on the ground of delay, noting that proceedings had been pending since 2002 and the matter was at the stage of defendant's witness examination, and sought time to cite legal precedents. The court re-notified the matter for further consideration before the Joint Registrar and the court on future dates.
Kunal Chintamani Kelkar v.Kanika Sood & Anr.
The Petitioner, a professional photographer and equal designated partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with Respondent No.1, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking urgent interim measures of protection. The disputes concerned alleged unauthorized use of the brand 'The Autofocus' (conceived by the Petitioner), control over digital assets and social media accounts, denial of access to the LLP's premises, and unilateral transfer of approximately Rs.53.26 lakhs from the LLP's bank account to Respondent No.1's personal account. The Delhi High Court, upon prima facie review of the LLP Agreement, found that while Clause 13 permitted independent business activity subject to prior intimation, Clause 14 expressly prohibited a designated partner from undertaking any business directly competing with the LLP's objectives. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and granted limited interim relief restraining Respondent No.1 from transferring or alienating the LLP's assets, digital data, or retaining exclusive control over the LLP's digital accounts.
M/S RPCI Private Limited And Another v.Petals IVF And Women Care Centre LLP And Another
This arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by M/S RPCI Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an LLP agreement with Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP. The applicant claimed Rs. 1,63,07,000/- along with 18% interest, while the opposite party had filed a suit before the Delhi High Court under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Allahabad High Court, applying the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer' from Vidya Drolia, held that an arbitration clause existed between the parties and appointed Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal as the sole arbitrator.
State v.Parvinder Singh
The State prosecuted Parvinder Singh for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging that on 12.05.2016 he was found in possession of counterfeit products bearing the falsified trademark of M/s Harish Industrial Corporation. The prosecution's case collapsed because the case property was destroyed in a fire at the malkhana of PS Kashmere Gate, making it impossible to establish the identity of the seized goods. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Rakesh Kohli
The State prosecuted Rakesh Kohli, Bhaga Ram, Vipin Kumar, and Deepak Kumar under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly manufacturing, stocking, and selling counterfeit automobile parts bearing the registered trademarks of Bajaj Auto Company. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, Sh. Jitender Kumar, and an expert witness, Ratan Pal Singh. The Court acquitted all four accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.