India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 71 · 2,115 total
94 Cedar Properties And Trading Llp & Ors v.Shri Munish Thakur & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings related to a previous settlement concerning the trademark 'DROTIN' and its variants. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was using the deceptively similar mark 'DROTINXT' in medicinal preparations, constituting contempt of court. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their returnable appearance.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Castrol Limited And Anr v.Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Castrol Limited against Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service notice, citing the need for immediate action regarding search and seizure of counterfeit goods. Crucially, the Court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize infringing products, examine accounts, and gather evidence at the defendants' premises, setting the stage for robust litigation.
Abbott Product Operations Ag & Anr. v.Medinox Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued an order compelling Defendants No. 1 and 2 (pharmaceutical distributors) to immediately cease manufacturing medicines bearing the impugned trademark 'DUPHAMED' or any variation using 'DUPHA'. This interim relief was granted in the context of urgent proceedings, while also allowing time for existing stock disposal. The court further streamlined procedural requirements by granting exemptions related to document filing and pre-institution mediation.
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v.Azad Optical Co. India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Trading As Kanika Impetus v.Kamal Raheja Trading As Amaira Herbals
The Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on a Commercial Court's order that had made an ad-interim injunction absolute. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off concerning the identical trademark 'MARKS GO' used for skin products by both parties. While noting procedural deficiencies in the lower court's decision regarding passing off principles, the High Court ultimately decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order pending a full appeal hearing.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court involved an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revive its trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anita Anu. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could override a previous court order that required adherence to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant argued that the nine-month delay between the alleged knowledge (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024) was unexplained, suggesting an artificial creation of urgency.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revoke a dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using the mark 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the issue (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Citing precedents, the judge held that without a clear explanation for the delay, the urgency was artificially created, leading to the revocation of the dispensation.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, which is crucial given the immediate need for evidence collection. Most notably, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged counterfeit 'HERO' branded auto parts, thereby bolstering the plaintiffs' case for injunction and damages.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v.Luxe Moto LLP
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
M/S Sukh Sagar v.Mr Dhanraj Poojari
M/S Sukh Sagar appealed the dismissal of its temporary injunction application against Mr Dhanraj Poojari, which sought to restrain infringement of their established trademark in the food and accommodation sector. The Karnataka High Court, while acknowledging the contentious issues requiring a full trial, chose to dispose of the appeal without ruling on the merits. Instead, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously, keeping all aspects of the dispute open.
Tarakant Sangwani v.Apollo Pipes Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. v.Max Healthcare Institute Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'YATRI' and 'SAHYATRI', constituted infringement of the plaintiff's renowned trademarks ('YATRI' and 'YC') and copyright associated with electric vehicles. This order provides immediate protection to YC Electric Vehicle while the main suit proceeds.
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.