India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 71 · 2,115 total
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Varun Chohpra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a new suit filed by Varun Chohpra & Anr. against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf, which alleged trademark infringement concerning the 'NATRAJ' brand. The court noted that a similar matter was already pending in Bangalore. Before proceeding with summons, the court directed steps to ascertain the maintainability of the current suit due to the new cause of action. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants for a returnable hearing.
Rajesh Jain v.Amit Jain & Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the refusal to grant discovery of documents. The suit involves trademark infringement and passing off, where defendants raised a defense of distinctiveness. The court ruled that since the sought-after documents were primarily intended to rebut an earlier application (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) which was decided nearly ten years prior, they lacked relevance at the current stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff must rely on other evidence to prove their case.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Abdus Salam Khan
In a suit concerning alleged counterfeiting and infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. The court allowed exemptions for urgent proceedings, including waiving advance service and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the need for swift action against counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate the alleged infringements, allowing access to premises and financial records to gather evidence regarding the unauthorized use of unique designs and the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
north side brewers private ltd v.the registrar of trade marks
North Side Brewers Private Ltd appealed a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, prompting consideration of relevant case law regarding the Registrar's discretionary powers and precedents concerning trademark delays.
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd v.Rama Krishna Books
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd against Rama Krishna Books. The publisher alleged that the defendant was selling substandard, infringing copies of their medical textbooks while also misusing their registered trademarks. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business interests in the specialized medical publishing market.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the edible oil market. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'SATHYAM GOLD' on products mimicking the plaintiff's registered brand 'Gold Winner'. Both parties ultimately agreed to settle the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to decree the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel v.Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel against the trial court's order granting an injunction to Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had established use of the 'SPG' trademark since 2007, noting that appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings made by the trial court. While dismissing the main appeal, the High Court granted a temporary stay on the order for three weeks.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited against Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'Western Choice' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'Officer's Choice.' This crucial ruling immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling alcoholic beverages using the infringing label. Furthermore, the order mandates a structured process for the disposal of existing stock while the main suit proceeds.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Ceat Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed Ceat Limited's appeal challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'FARMAX'. The court found that the appellant failed to adequately explain a significant delay in filing the appeal, rendering the condonation plea specious. Furthermore, on the merits, the court held that 'FARMAX' was structurally and phonetically similar to existing marks ('FORMAX' and 'FARMOX') registered for related goods (vehicles/tractors), creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited v.Mr.Bean Trampoline Park/Mr.Been Trampoline Park
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited successfully obtained leave from the Bombay High Court to proceed with a commercial IP suit against Mr.Bean Trampoline Park. The petitioner, owner of the 'Mr.Bean' character and associated trademarks/copyrights, alleged infringement by the respondent operating under similar names and marks. The court granted permission, finding that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai, thereby establishing jurisdiction despite the park being located elsewhere.
Waycool Food Products Private Limited v.Cheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
Novartis Ag & Ors. v.Noviets Pharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, challenged the charging of TDS and interest by the DCIT regarding annual payments made to international educational boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held these payments constituted royalty for using trademarks. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and restored the matter to the AO for further clarification on the nature of the lump sum fees.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, appealed against orders charging TDS and interest on annual payments made to international education boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held that these payments constituted royalty for the use of trademarks and services provided by the overseas institutions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further clarification regarding the nature of the lump sum fees.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.
The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to suspend limitation periods under the Trade Marks Act, citing severe disruptions in accessing the Trademark Registry's online portal. The petitioner highlighted persistent technical difficulties, including non-functional e-filing services and payment gateway issues, which were causing stakeholders to lose valuable IP rights. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to appear on the next date to provide detailed solutions and status updates regarding the systemic failures.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v.Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement between Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited (Plaintiff) and Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Defendant). While the Plaintiff presented extensive evidence of market presence, sales, and potential consumer confusion regarding the marks 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' and 'BABY FOREST', the court ultimately dismissed the applications seeking an injunction against the use of the latter. The judgment emphasized the need for a composite assessment, referencing the established 'Pianotist test,' to determine likelihood of confusion.
Prakash Singh & Anr. v.Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed cancellation petitions filed by Prakash Singh & Anr. seeking the removal and rectification of trademarks registered by Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr. The petitioners alleged that the respondent, a charitable trust, sought to monopolize the spiritual heritage and goodwill associated with the late 'GURU JI' on a mala fide basis. The Court accepted notice from the respondent and scheduled the matter for further arguments.
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.