India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 71 · 2,115 total
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v.Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private Limited v.Maha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark 'VNYABAIE' (application no. 5055762 in Class 3), primarily objecting to the letter 'V' being displayed in a different colour from the rest of the mark. During proceedings, the petitioner clarified that it had no objection if the respondent used the letter 'V' in the same colour as the remaining alphabets, even in a different font. Respondent No. 1, appearing in person, agreed to change the colour of 'V' to match the rest of the mark, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Exponent Energy Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
Exponent Energy Private Limited appealed against the refusal of its trademark application No. 5432621 for the word mark 'EXPONENT' in Class 42, covering scientific and technological services related to electric vehicle battery packs and charging equipment. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing phonetic similarity with two earlier marks: 'EXPONENT' (Application No. 3595698) and 'EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP' (Application No. 5382808). The Madras High Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order that failed to record adequate reasons as required under Section 18(5) and did not consider the appellant's statutory requests under Sections 12, 18(4), and the proviso to Section 20. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to deal with each cited mark separately and pass a reasoned order within three months.
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA v.Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA sued Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement concerning its well-known vaccine brands including ENGERIX, HAVRIX, INFANRIX, ROTARIX, CERVARIX, and SYNFLORIX. The defendant had adopted confusingly similar marks such as RUTORIX, DROTARIX, AMIRIX, CEFTARIX, and MIRIX for pharmaceutical products. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.04.2026, and the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directing the defendant to cease all infringing use, recall products, cancel its trademark applications, and take down online listings.
M/S Dindayal Industries Ltd v.M/S Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the framing of issues in a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'Dindayal' used by both parties for Ayurvedic products. The court deleted Issue No. 10, holding that opposition to a trademark application (No. 2885787 in Class 05) cannot be adjudicated in a civil suit as it is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The court further modified Issue No. 12 to expand the scope of the passing off inquiry beyond narrow ocular similarity of packaging, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Parle Products v. J.P. and Co.
Cobble Stone Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Cobble Stone Private Limited appealed against the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing its trade mark application no. 4009557 in Class 19 for the mark 'COBBLE STONE' under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant contended that it had been using the mark since 2011 and was an honest concurrent user under Section 12 of the Act, and that the Registrar failed to consider its adjournment request. The respondent had no objection to a remand for de novo consideration, and the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to be completed within 60 days.
Shazia Kidwai And Anr. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark Division, Intellectual Property Bhavan And Anr.
This is a brief procedural order from the Bombay High Court in an interim application arising from a first appeal concerning trade mark matters. The appellant's counsel sought time due to difficulty in presenting arguments, and the court granted a stand-over, adjourning the matter to 23 December 2026.
L'Oreal S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
L'Oreal S.A. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to renew its trademark 'ELSEVE' bearing registration no. 471634 in class 03, or alternatively to dispose of the interlocutory petition for renewal after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court allowed the exemption application, issued notice to the Respondent who accepted notice, and directed the Respondent to file its reply within four weeks, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 08.12.2026.
Tregum Remedies Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner Of Trademarks
Tregum Remedies Private Limited challenged the refusal of its trademark application No. 5728063 for the mark 'THE SKIN COMPANY' in Class 3 by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. The Madras High Court set aside the refusal order, holding that the impugned order was a generic, pre-conceived decision that failed to address the appellant's response and applied inconsistent reasoning. The Court directed the respondent to advertise the application in the Trademarks Journal under Section 20(1) read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Kei Industries Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter filed by Kei Industries Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court addressed an interlocutory application (I.A. 27177/2026) filed under Section 151 of the CPC by Respondent No. 1 and directed the matter to be listed on 30.10.2026.
M Mathew v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, M Mathew, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, which deemed his Opposition No.1238680 against Trade Mark Application No.5084713 for the mark 'MUTHOOTTU' in Class 36 (filed by Muthoottu Mini Nidhi Limited) as abandoned. The petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar to decide the opposition on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of the processing of the trademark application pending further hearing.
Mahesh Gupta v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Mahesh Gupta against the Registrar of Trademarks. The appellant's counsel circulated an adjournment slip, to which the respondent's counsel raised no objection. The court, at the request of the appellant, re-notified the matter to 02.02.2027.
Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Another
This is a procedural order from the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division in a trademark matter. After hearing the parties, the court treated the matter as heard-in-part since substantial arguments had been advanced. The matter was adjourned and listed for further consideration on 26th November, 2026.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a Delhi High Court order in a trademark matter involving two connected cases that were listed before Justice Vikas Mahajan. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the court re-notified the matters to 23 November 2026 without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Harale Seva Sangh v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, Harale Seva Sangh, filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the Bombay High Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate rectification proceedings in compliance with applicable process requirements. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter involving Vivek Verma & Ors as appellants and the Registrar of Trademarks as respondent. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan, was issued at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The matter was adjourned and listed for re-notification on 23 November 2026.
The Brand Brewery Private Limited & Anr. v.Arman Anand
This Interim Application arose from a commercial intellectual property rights suit concerning trademark infringement. The Defendant, through his counsel, gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court to discontinue the use of the marks impugned at Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint and to transition to a new trademark depicted at Annexure-1 within six months. The Court accepted the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and disposed of the Interim Application in those terms.
Surya Hotels And Properties v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Surya Hotels And Properties, engaged in the hospitality business and proprietor of the registered mark 'Misty Mountain Resort' (Application No.1969012 in Class 43), filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the rival 'Misty Mountain' trade mark (Registration No.2441920 in Class 43) held by Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, along with transfer of its pending rectification proceeding (No.MAS-279782) from the Trade Marks Registry to the Madras High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner subsequently restricted its prayer to only the transfer of the rectification proceeding, to which the second respondent raised no objection. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer the rectification records to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks.
R.Booma Rani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The petitioner, a safety match manufacturer from Sattur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept her renewal application for the trade mark 'THOTHA' (Hindi label with parrot) registered under No.1532336 in Class 34. The mark was registered on 07.02.2023, nearly sixteen years after her 2007 application, by which time the first ten-year term had already expired on 20.02.2017. The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register under Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, no time bar operated against renewal, and directed the Registrar to accept the renewal application and renew the registration for the period 20.02.2017 to 20.02.2027.
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
John Vadassery v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, a trademark agent registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed a writ petition challenging the Trade Marks Registry's practice of insisting that authorisations filed by trademark agents under Section 145 of the Act be stamped as powers of attorney. The petitioner contended that the statutory framework only requires a simple authorisation, not a stamped power of attorney, while the respondents argued that the long-standing practice of accepting stamped powers of attorney was necessary. The Kerala High Court examined the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and considered whether the Registrar of Trade Marks, being an officer of the Central Government and not a court or tribunal, could insist on stamp duty being paid on such authorisations.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
This is a review application filed by the respondents seeking review of an order dated 23rd March, 2018, in a rectification proceeding. The review application was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) but stood transferred to the Calcutta High Court following the abolition of IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court directed the matter to be listed in November 2026 and asked the advocates to resolve discrepancies in the arrangement of papers in the paper book.
M/s. Cipla Ltd. v.M/s. Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This case involves two interlocutory applications filed by M/s. Cipla Ltd. in a pending trade mark opposition petition, seeking permission to file additional documents and to lead secondary evidence. The documents relate to various 'OMNI' formative marks including OMNICAL, OMNIGEL, OMNIM, OMNIX, and OMNICLAV. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, but the Madras High Court allowed the applications, holding that any objections could be raised at trial without causing prejudice.
Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd (represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. Saravanan) v.Rajesh Jayaraj trading as Rio Scans and Labs
The petitioner, Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd, sought transfer of a pending infringement and passing off suit (O.S. No. 302 of 2022) from the Principal District Court, Madurai to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court for consolidation with its rectification petition (O.P.(TM) No.64 of 2025) concerning the rival marks 'RIO' and 'RIO SCANS AND LABS'. The court held that consolidation and transfer under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 CPC are discretionary and not automatic merely because a rectification proceeding is pending. The application was dismissed, with the court observing that the rectification petition could proceed independently and its effect could be worked out in the civil suit in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
S. Purushottam, Sashibhushan & S. Nagraj, Trading as M/s. Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries v.ITC Limited & The Registrar of Trademarks
This case involves an application filed by the applicants, trading as M/s.Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries, seeking permission to mark additional documents in a trademark opposition proceeding against ITC Limited. The applicants sought to introduce documents including an invitation card, income tax returns, advertisements, and trademark prosecution records. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, as evidence and cross-examination had already been completed. The Madras High Court allowed the application, permitting the documents to be marked subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility.
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.