India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 105 of 123 · 3,667 total
M/s.Cholayil Private Limited v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'Herbal,' was not phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'Medimix.' Furthermore, despite the plaintiff claiming long usage, the court noted that the artistic work relied upon was only assigned in 2008, undermining the claim of continuous use since 1969. Ultimately, the court concluded there were more dissimilarities than similarities, finding no likelihood of deception among ordinary purchasers.
M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v.M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd., the registered owner of the trade mark 'NAKODA' for milk products, filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its applications for temporary injunction. The Respondents argued that they were prior and long-term users of the mark since 1978, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport v.Bhatia Time
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport against Bhatia Time, who was selling products bearing the disputed 'PUMA' trademark. The court found that a prima facie case for passing off and trademark infringement had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize all infringing goods, packaging materials, and relevant business records.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Nizami Garments
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.
Madhu Product v.Sundaram Files
Madhu Product, a manufacturer and seller of stationery goods since 1978, holds a registered trademark 'NANDI'. The petitioner filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents for infringement of this trade mark. The writ petitions were filed challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim order.
M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. v.P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. against P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders, finding that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL TOUCH' was likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff under its registered mark 'MARVEL' in Class-30 goods like tea and spices. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to established brands against deceptively similar marks, even during preliminary proceedings.
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v.Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.
The Indian Express Limited v.Express Publications Madurai Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by The Indian Express Limited against Express Publications Madurai Limited. While the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of 'The New Indian Express Group' constituted illegal infringement and passing off, the court found no valid ground to grant an injunction. However, to prevent consumer confusion, the court imposed a condition requiring the defendants to append 'Madurai' and their place of publication when using the expression outside the territories permitted by prior agreements.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Smt K Nirmala Raghava Rao v.N G Subbaraya Setty
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and royalty recovery related to perfumes. The petitioner sought to stay a subsequent suit, arguing that the issues were identical to an earlier case where the trademark was assigned to a bank. However, the court ruled that the two suits involved distinct legal claims—one concerning injunction/royalty prior to assignment, and the other regarding damages post-termination of the agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a stay was dismissed.
Rainforest CAFÉ, Inc. v.Rain Forest Cafe
The plaintiff, Rainforest CAFÉ Inc., a US-based restaurant chain owner, filed a suit against local defendants for using the identical mark 'RAINFOREST CAFÉ' and its associated logo/tagline in connection with their restaurant business in Delhi. The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the plaintiff's trade marks and copyrights.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v.M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories against Intas Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged similarity between their drug trademarks, 'NIFTRAN' and 'NIFTAS'. While the plaintiff sought an interim injunction, the court did not grant a blanket injunction. Instead, it directed the defendant to maintain complete accounts of sales and profits from the product sold under 'NIFTAS', and imposed specific restrictions on packaging types used by the defendant pending further proceedings.
Thalappakattu Biriyani and Fast Food (temporarily called as "Chennai Rawther Thalappakattu Biriyani") v.M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement and passing off of the trade mark "Thalappakatti Naidu Biriyani Hotel" by M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas, which used the similar mark "Thalappakattu". The court examined the prior use and reputation of the Plaintiff's mark versus the Defendant's adoption of the similar name.
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd. v.Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.
krizm hotels private limited v.vaishnavi estatesp ltd
M/S Krizm Hotels Private Limited (Lemon Tree hotels) sued M/S Vaishnavi Estates(P) Ltd for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's use of 'Lemon Tree Apartments' for residential apartments created confusion and diluted the plaintiff’s hotel brand. The plaintiff claimed significant investment in their Lemon Tree hotel chain and sought an injunction to prevent further use of the mark.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive damages.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors. v.Surjit Singh Sial & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's website for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly selling and promoting Himalaya products while creating a false impression of being authorized dealers. Furthermore, the parties settled on damages, with the defendants agreeing to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiffs.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v.Euro Ice Cream & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled against Drums Food International in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'HOKEY POKEY'. The court held that even if a plaintiff starts using a mark after a defendant has filed an application for registration, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a passing off or infringement action. The judgment strongly affirmed the priority given to registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that registration provides a robust legal shield against subsequent users.
Siddhant Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Thanco Enterprises
The Bombay High Court rejected the defendants' attempt to set aside a prior injunction restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs' registered mark 'NATURAL' and passing off their goods. The court found that the application was not bona fide, noting that the defendants sought to rely on documents they could have easily accessed earlier. Consequently, the original order protecting the plaintiff's trademark and copyright was upheld and made effective immediately, with the defendants ordered to deposit proceeds from sales during the restricted period.
Anu Ambraile Proprietrix M/s.AA Impex Company v.The District Collector Tiruvallur
Anu Ambraile challenged various orders related to the cancellation of her property mark registration and the subsequent seizure/confiscation of red sanders wood. The court ultimately found that the initial seizure and confiscation were void, upholding the judgment that the petitioner was not involved in illegal exports.
M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. against M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MK' and its similar firm name was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, despite the defendant claiming trademark registration. This decision reinforces the principle that established goodwill and reputation can outweigh subsequent registrations if consumer confusion is a risk.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.B.P.Singh Tyagi
Pfizer successfully sued B.P.Singh Tyagi and his company for trademark infringement and passing off related to their cough syrup product. The Delhi High Court found that the defendant's mark, OREX, was phonetically and deceptively similar to Pfizer's registered mark, COREX. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
Champagne Moet And Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Champagne Moet And Chandon's appeal against an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision regarding trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether Respondent No. 3 could register the mark 'MOET’S,' which was similar to the Petitioner's established brand, MOET & CHANDON. The Court ultimately accepted the defense of acquiescence, finding that the Petitioner had failed to challenge the use and subsequent registrations by the respondent over a long period, thereby allowing the registration to proceed.
M/S Loreal v.Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Loreal against Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr., finding that the defendants were infringing upon Loreal's registered trademark 'L'OREAL'. The court determined that the use of the identical mark on similar cosmetic goods constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, noting a clear case of triple identity (same mark, same goods, same market). Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants, although claims for damages were rejected due to lack of evidence.
United Brothers v.Aziz Ulghani
The Delhi High Court addressed two complex trade mark disputes involving the identical mark 'UNITED' used by United Brothers (UB) and Aziz Ulghani (AU). In one matter, UB sought to cancel AU's registration for electric flat irons, but the court upheld the IPAB's dismissal of this petition, citing laches and acquiescence. Furthermore, regarding AU's application for household appliances like mixer grinders, the Court concurred with the earlier finding that there was a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace due to the similarity of goods sold by both parties. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed both petitions, allowing both registrations to continue.
United Breweries Ltd v.Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd
The Karnataka High Court addressed the complex interplay between design infringement and passing off in a dispute involving breweries. The court emphasized that while an action for design infringement is possible under specific conditions, the primary focus of the case involved establishing passing off. The judgment highlighted the distinct legal tests required for each claim, noting that passing off requires demonstrating deception by the public regarding the source of goods.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Gowari Rajendran and Another v.Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks & 2
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeals challenging orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the rectification of trade mark 'PRIYA'. The court found that IPAB had properly appreciated the facts and evidence, noting that the petitioner waived their right to introduce belated documents due to laches. Consequently, the petitions seeking to quash the IPAB's orders were dismissed, and the interim stay granted in favor of the petitioners was vacated.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
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.