India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 71 · 2,115 total
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
Greenlam Industries Limited v.Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Greenlam Industries Limited against Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and granted various applications related to filing documents and time extensions. Crucially, the court directed that summons be issued to the defendant, initiating the formal trial process for the claim of trademark infringement based on the use of similar marks like 'GREENLAND' and 'ZOHA GREENLAND'.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Bot Organic Private Limited v.Piruz Khambhatta & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge filed by Piruz Khambhatta against an earlier Commercial Court order that allowed the plaintiff, Bot Organic Private Limited, to amend its plaint. The core dispute involved alleged trademark infringement and passing-off concerning the mark 'RUS' used on fruit juice packaging versus the plaintiff's well-known mark 'RASNA'. The court upheld the amendment, finding that adding variants of the existing trade mark did not fundamentally change the nature or scope of the original suit.
Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited v.Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited against Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of identical or deceptively similar labels and trade dress for rice products. This immediate relief prevents the defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell goods under the disputed marks until the full trial can take place.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Shivgyan Developers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint settlement application between The Indian Hotels Company Limited (Plaintiff) and Shivgyan Developers Private Limited (Defendant). To avoid protracted litigation regarding the well-known trademark 'VIVANTA', both parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute. Under the terms, the Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's sole ownership of VIVANTA, committed to using the alternative mark 'VIVIAN,' and undertook to withdraw four pending trademark applications related to the disputed brand.
Dark Brown Through Proprietor v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a petition filed by Dark Brown Through Proprietor alleging trademark infringement by Respondent No. 6, noting that local police authorities had failed to act on the petitioner's complaint. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim itself, the court issued a directive compelling Respondents No. 2 and 3 (police/authorities) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within two months. This order serves as an administrative nudge to ensure timely action against alleged IP violations.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd v.M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills against M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd. The case, which involved allegations of passing off regarding the 'JINDAL' mark, was resolved through mediation and a subsequent settlement agreement. The court upheld the compromise decree, ensuring that while the parties remain bound by the terms, the specific details of the confidential settlement will not be disclosed in the public record.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v.Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
V.K.R. Venkatesan v.S.Athiappan
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr. The court directed the Respondent to file additional documents demonstrating that the Petitioner was simultaneously seeking rectification of the impugned trademark 'CUREKIND' before the Trademark Registry. Furthermore, the hearing was adjourned to September 2nd, 2024, allowing both parties time to submit composite briefs.
Castrol Limited v.Vikas Mishra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited against Vikas Mishra regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement. The court found a prima facie case based on the similarity between Castrol's established global brand and the defendant's use of marks like 'ACTIVE', 'ACFIVE', and 'POWER'. This initial order restrains the defendant from using confusingly similar branding while mandating the disclosure of sales accounts, setting the stage for further litigation.
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.