India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 125 · 3,740 total
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' registered in Class 03 in favour of Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, which the court found lawful. Pursuant to the settlement, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the Register to maintain its purity.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenged the dismissal of its opposition (No. 1075195) against respondent no.2's trademark application (No. 1606126) for the mark '20-20' in Class 30. The Registrar dismissed the opposition, the Single Judge upheld that order, and the Division Bench also dismissed Parle's Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that Parle, having claimed before the Registry that its mark was dissimilar to the cited mark to obtain registration, could not later claim deceptive similarity to seek equitable relief against the registered proprietor. The respondent no.2's diligent pursuit of registration was upheld, and Parle's intervening use of the same mark was given no special benefit.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Orange Biotech and others who were using the mark 'ORG 9' for a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found prima facie trademark infringement, noting that the alpha-numeric mark ORG-9 was deceptively similar to the registered mark ARG-9, and relied on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. The court granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
Cipla Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972 in Class 5), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court allowed restoration, and the Registrar subsequently updated the status to 'Registered'. A third-party applicant then sought impleadment and recall of the restoration order, arguing that the Registrar had not followed Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and that the applicant had not been heard. The court dismissed the third-party applications, holding that renewal/restoration is strictly between the Trademark Registry and the registered proprietor, and any aggrieved third party must pursue rectification proceedings rather than intervening in restoration proceedings.
Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a trademark rectification/variation order in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, where the Single Judge had directed variation of the registered mark 'AiC ARUN' (Reg. No. 1524226 in Class 7) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act by deleting the word 'ARUN'. The Division Bench did not disturb the substantive direction but permitted the appellant to dispose of its existing stock of AIC Arun branded goods and packing material valued at approximately Rs. 8.50 lakhs within six months. The order balances the rights of the registered proprietor with the practical need to exhaust pre-existing inventory following a trademark variation order.
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that restrained him from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, which was found deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products' registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The appellant argued that the respondent suppressed material facts regarding his prior use since June 2021, but the court held that the 45 GST invoices could not overcome the Registrar's finding of no bona fide user and the established deceptive similarity. The court upheld the Single Judge's detailed reasoning and found no suppression warranting interference with the injunction.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
SAPAT International Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SAPAT' in Class 30 for tea (with roots tracing back to 1944/1957), sued Niravi Consumer LLP and related entities for trademark infringement and passing off after the defendants began using 'SAPAT' alongside their brand 'NIRAVI' on tea outlets and signages following termination of supply arrangements. The court had earlier recorded the defendants' statement on 28 January 2025 that they would not use 'SAPAT' on packaged tea. In IA(L) 18951/2025, the plaintiff alleged violation of that order, but the court held the statement was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea under the trading name Sapat & Co. Nashik, dismissing the violation application. However, the court found that the use of signages and invoices bearing 'SAPAT' did constitute infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd., part of the ADS Group of liquor companies, appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was a common/personal/geographical name and non-distinctive. The Delhi High Court held that the Registrar applied the wrong test, since Section 9(1)(a) bars marks devoid of distinctive character but does not require uniqueness, novelty, or inventiveness as a precondition for registration. The court found the impugned order to be non-speaking and perverse, showing complete non-application of mind, and quashed it while directing reconsideration.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Havells India Limited, a well-known FMEG company, sued Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' mark 'HAVAI' was deceptively similar to their well-known trademark 'HAVELLS'. The court found that the defendants had cleverly modified the letter 'L' to 'I' to create phonetic and visual similarity, with the intent to encash on Havells' reputation. The court recognized HAVELLS as a well-known mark based on its extensive use since 1955, global presence across 60+ countries, and substantial sales and advertising expenditure. An ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks during the pendency of the suit.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court ordered the destruction of cement bags bearing the impugned marks 'VIJAY ULTRA Power CEMENT with Sun Logo' and 'Ultra hi-plus CEMENT Bemisal Majbooti' as they were found to be infringing the trademarks of Ultratech Cement Ltd. The court also allowed the plaintiff to file brief written submissions along with compilation of case law. The case has been stood over to August 3, 2026 for final hearing.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and artistic works. The court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation and effecting advance service. The defendants were directed to block and suspend the impugned website and preserve domain registration records.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr v.Microsoft Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Safex Chemicals India Limited v.Safex Seed India Llp & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Safex Chemicals India Limited, restraining Safex Seed India Llp & Anr from using the trademark 'SAFEX' in relation to agrochemical products. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used the trademark 'SAFEX' since 1991 and had established a substantial sales turnover and widespread advertising and promotion of its products under the trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction against Dabur India Limited's product 'COOL KING THANDA TAEL' due to its deceptively similar trade dress to Emami Limited's Navratna Oil. The court found that the trade dress of Dabur's product was likely to mislead consumers and constitute passing off. The appeal by Dabur India Limited was dismissed, and the pending application was also dismissed. The court's findings are prima facie and subject to the final decision in the suit post-trial.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
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.