India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 107 of 123 · 3,667 total
Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.Ammini Karnan
The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal in a passing off action, setting aside the lower court's decree. While the case was remanded back to the District Court for a comprehensive re-evaluation, the High Court simultaneously granted an interim injunction. This order specifically restrained the defendants from using similar marks on rice and rice products, acknowledging the plaintiffs' prima facie case regarding their reputation in that sector.
J & P Coats Ltd. v.New Green Ways
J & P Coats Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and account of profit against New Green Ways, alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing stitch kits and tatting materials under the trade mark ANCHOR in connection with goods unrelated to the plaintiffs' business. The court found that the defendants were wrongfully selling and passing off goods as those of the plaintiffs.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Jolen Inc., setting aside previous decisions by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. The court recognized that Jolen's mark had acquired significant trans-border reputation and goodwill due to its extensive international use, which spilled over into India. By establishing Jolen as the first party in both international and domestic markets, the High Court mandated the registration of the trademark for the Petitioner.
Marico Limited v.Agro Tech Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Marico Limited's appeal against an order that rejected its injunction application regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the respondent's use of 'LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY' did not constitute deceptive similarity or passing off, primarily because the expression is descriptive in nature. This ruling emphasizes that registration alone does not guarantee a prima facie case for infringement if statutory defenses are validly raised.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an adverse ruling by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) concerning the trademark T-SERIES. The court affirmed the initial registration granted to Super Cassettes, finding that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion between T-SERIES and the marks held by TELCO. The judgment emphasized that because Super Cassettes did not use the word 'TATA,' which is central to TELCO's branding, the similarity claim failed.
Chorion Rights Limited. v.M/S Ishan Apparel & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning the trademark NODDY. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient objective evidence of prior use and market presence in India, despite claiming worldwide rights. Conversely, the defendants presented evidence of their own long-standing use and registration of the mark for apparel since 1995. Consequently, the court ruled against granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Shri Atul Rawal v.M/S S.B. Equipments
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction in a passing off suit concerning the 'SUPER BRIGHT' detergent brand. The court found that despite the similarity of the marks, the plaintiff was disentitled to immediate relief due to strong evidence suggesting acquiescence. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use and continued to compete with them without taking timely legal action, which strongly suggested consent or tolerance of the usage.
M/S Living Media India Ltd. & Anr v.Asad Patel & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Living Media India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered trademark 'AAJ TAK'. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Khabrein AAJ TAK,' despite the prefix, was deceptively similar and amounted to passing off. While the plaintiffs were successful in securing the injunction, they failed to provide cogent evidence regarding business loss or profits derived by the defendants, meaning no damages were awarded.
M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.Vinod Kanji Shah & Nitin Kanji Shah
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against a trade mark office decision. The core issue was whether the first respondent's use of the identical word 'Nandini' for agarbattis and doops would cause confusion with the appellant's well-established milk product brand. The court ruled that due to the phonetic similarity and the exact matching style of writing, the offending mark is deceptively similar, thereby protecting the goodwill of the established dairy producer.
Mukesh Khadaria (Trading as M/s Aggarwal Udyog) and Ram Plaster v.DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, confirming the injunction granted against them. The court found that the appellants were passing off their plaster of Paris as belonging to DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited because they used the prominent trademark 'Shriram' on their packaging. Applying the test of overall visual impression and likelihood of confusion among consumers, the court ruled in favor of DCM, emphasizing that mere dissimilarities do not negate the deceptive nature of the trade practice.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Deepak Mangal & Others
The Delhi High Court set aside an interim ex parte injunction granted to Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Deepak Mangal & Others. While Toyota argued passing off based on its global reputation and the use of 'PRIUS,' the court found that Toyota had suffered from an unexplained delay in bringing the matter before the court, which was over six years. The court also questioned whether 'PRIUS' was a coined word or merely a common English term, ultimately favoring the defendant due to the balance of convenience.
M/S Fiorano Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Amd)
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the appeal filed by M/S Fiorano Software Technologies against a trial court order that refused a temporary injunction. The dispute centered on whether AMD's use of 'Fiorano' in its server platform infringed upon Fiorano's registered trademarks, including 'Fiorano SOA Platform.' While the appellant argued for trademark infringement and passing off, the High Court declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, directing the Trial Court to proceed with a full adjudication.
M/S. N.Ranga Rao & Sons v.Koya'S Perfumery Works
The appellant, a leading manufacturer of agarbathies, filed a suit claiming infringement of their registered trade mark 'WOODS' and copyrighted artistic work. The appeal challenged an order directing the respondent to change its trade mark usage. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that 'WOOD' is a publici juris ingredient for agarpathies, and noting differences in color scheme and font between the products.
M/S P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S P.P. Prime Properties & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. / M/S P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., which sought injunctions against competitors for alleged trademark infringement and passing off of the mark "PP". The court noted that while the appellants claimed extensive goodwill associated with their brand, the respondents provided vague or contradictory explanations for using the mark in their respective businesses (real estate/construction). Ultimately, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding the interim relief sought, allowing the suits to proceed on their merits.
Shabbir Medical Hall v.Mohammed Naseer
Shabbir Medical Hall filed a suit alleging that Mohammed Naseer infringed its registered trademark, 'ISPAHANI TEA,' by using the deceptively similar mark 'FAMILY TEA' along with an imitation color scheme and get up. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for this alleged infringement. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, confirming a single judge's order that revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaint failed to establish any part of the cause of action within its local jurisdiction.
Rajesh Chheda (Prop. Of Sbhubham Plywood) v.Shubham Plywood Park
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim relief concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the registered mark 'SHUBHAM' was not being used in conjunction with the plaintiff's specific logo or on the product itself by the defendant. Furthermore, the judge noted that 'SHUBHAM' is a common word and household term, making it difficult to grant exclusivity against all users of the name. The court emphasized that merely adopting a common shop name is insufficient grounds for an injunction.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) v.Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of Marie Stopes International (MSI) against Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'Marie Stopes' word mark and associated 'Door Device' logo by PSS, which had previously operated as a licensee. MSI successfully argued that after the termination of their license agreement in 2003, PSS continued to use the marks, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion among customers. The court found the resemblance between the two marks too striking and close, thus protecting MSI's goodwill.
Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. v.Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court intervened in a trademark dispute, setting aside an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that had allowed a potentially biased statement by a Senior Examiner to remain on record. The court emphasized that the Registrar must maintain strict neutrality and objectivity when dealing with IP matters under Section 98 of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires immediate scrutiny of any evidence, especially those provided by registry officials, if they appear to exceed their statutory scope.
Nne Pharmaplan India Ltd. v.M/S Cgmp Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Nne Pharmaplan India Ltd.'s suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Cgmp Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd., which alleged passing off and infringement of its trade name 'PHARMAPLAN'. The court found that despite both companies operating in the pharmaceutical consulting sector, the names were sufficiently distinct ('NNE' vs. 'cGMP') to prevent customer confusion. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, especially given their own inaction against other entities using similar terms.
Country Inn Private Ltd. v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court disposed of interim applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Country Inn Private Ltd. and Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. While the plaintiff asserted prior rights over the 'Country Inn' trademark, the court ultimately denied an injunction against the plaintiff, citing that stopping its 17-year-old business would cause irreparable loss. Instead, the court imposed strict conditions on the plaintiff, requiring transparent financial reporting and restricting new licensing agreements until the suit is resolved.
Pramod Kumar Garg v.M/S Punjab Tractor Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Pramod Kumar Garg against M/S Punjab Tractor Limited regarding the registration of the trade mark 'SWARAJ'. The court found that despite the goods being registered in different classes, the similarity in their commercial use (agricultural sector) and the common consumer base created a grave possibility of confusion. Furthermore, the appellant's claim of honest concurrent user was rejected due to doubts about the evidence provided regarding the timing and nature of its usage.
Glaxo Group Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Glaxo Group Ltd. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its trademark registration appeal for 'VOLMAX.' The Delhi High Court intervened, finding that the IPAB had failed to properly consider key legal issues regarding deceptive similarity and the concept of a family of trademarks. Consequently, the High Court set aside the IPAB's order, restoring Glaxo's appeal to be decided afresh on all merits.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application filed by Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. against N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr., concerning the alleged infringement of its trade mark 'Pachrangas Farm Fresh'. While declining to grant a blanket restraining order at that stage, the court issued several critical directions. These include mandating the defendant to maintain and file quarterly accounts of sales, allowing conditional use of certain design elements, and permitting the temporary use of 'CHAMPION PACHRANGA' to mitigate market confusion until the final trial.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.Som Nath & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed interim applications filed by both parties regarding alleged infringement and passing off of the 'Pachranga' mark. While declining to grant a definitive injunction at that stage, the court mandated an expedited trial. Crucially, it allowed the defendants to continue using their label under strict conditions—specifically requiring them to use different fonts/scripts and background colors to prevent market confusion, while also compelling them to maintain detailed quarterly sales accounts.
Micolube India Ltd. v.Maggon Auto Centre & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a trade mark infringement suit due to pending rectification proceedings. The court ruled that while the suit claiming infringement of a registered trademark must be stayed until the validity of the registration is determined, the separate claim for 'passing off' can continue independently. This nuanced decision clarifies the scope of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing parties to pursue related claims even when one aspect of the litigation is paused.
Aveda Corporation v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Aveda Corporation against Dabur India Ltd. regarding the alleged passing off of its trademark 'Aveda'. The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the plaintiff lacked a strong prima facie case because it had minimal market presence in India and could not demonstrate irreparable injury. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendant due to the significant financial impact an injunction would have on Dabur's large-scale operations.
Kishore Kumar v.M/S. L. Chuni Lal Kidarnath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Kishore Kumar, against the defendants regarding the use of the trademark HOMELITE. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior adoption and usage of the mark for electric torches and flashlights, giving him a prima facie strong case on the merits. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend his suit, enabling him to incorporate crucial facts about a disclaimer imposed by the Trademark Registrar.
Tata Sons Limited v.Mr. Laxman & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants' use of the 'TATA' mark and the associated device was dishonest, intended to mislead consumers into believing an affiliation with the renowned conglomerate. While upholding the injunction, the court declined to award damages due to the plaintiff's failure to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence of loss or profit.
Siel Edible Oils Limited (Seol) v.M/S Khemka Sales (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Siel Edible Oils Limited against M/S Khemka Sales (P) Ltd. The core issue was that both parties claimed ownership of the same registered trademark, 'DCM No.1'. Citing Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court ruled that since a rectification application challenging the defendant's mark was pending, the infringement suit must be stayed until the outcome of the rectification proceedings is determined.
M/S Shivam Industries v.Mohanlal U Jain (and others)
This Karnataka High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit involving the brand 'RALLY' used for home appliances. The court reviewed the initial trial court order, which had allowed a defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claim of goodwill and long-standing use of the mark, the appellate court deferred a final decision on irreparable injury or balance of convenience until the merits of the case are fully heard.
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.