India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 71 · 2,115 total
Net World Sports Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Net World Sports Limited filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondent's counsel fairly stated that he had instructions to dispose of the petition by way of remand, given the degree of detail in the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. By consent, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for appropriate reconsideration by a responsible officer.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and John Doe (unknown)
Ashok Leyland Limited sought an ad-interim injunction before the Madras High Court against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe entity operating the website ashokleylandevdealer.com, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant alleged that the respondents were illegally representing themselves as affiliated with or endorsed by Ashok Leyland and soliciting dealership/franchise opportunities using identical or deceptively similar marks. The Court extended the interim injunction previously granted on 28.08.2026 until 27.10.2026 and listed the matter for further hearing.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Devinder Singh
This is a civil suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Devinder Singh seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court framed six issues for trial, including whether the agreement was cancelled/terminated as alleged by the defendant and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligations. The matter was listed for recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(OS) 666/2024) involving a dispute over an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- paid to the defendants. The court framed six issues for trial, directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Anr
This is a commercial suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Ramesh Chand and Anr seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The Defendants contended that the agreement was cancelled or terminated. The Delhi High Court framed the issues for trial and directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a commercial suit (CS(OS) 665/2024) before the Delhi High Court in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022 executed between the parties, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court, with the consent of the parties, framed six issues for trial and directed the parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence affidavits within stipulated timelines. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence, while a pending interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was listed separately.
Onesto Labs Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Onesto Labs Private Limited, a Delhi-based personal care products company operating under the house mark 'Innovist' and brands including 'Chemist at Play', filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark, logo, trade dress, and domain name, as well as passing off. The suit was filed on a John Doe basis against the operator of the infringing website www.chemistatplay.com. Since the domain name Registrar (defendant no.4) agreed to transfer the impugned domain to the plaintiff and there was no contest, the court made the temporary injunction absolute and decreed the suit against defendant no.1.
Ankur Mahajan v.VRV Sattvic Private Limited & Ors
The petitioner, Ankur Mahajan, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the respondents' trademark registration no. 3197787 in Class 32 from the Register of Trade Marks. The court allowed the petitioner's application for leave to file additional documents and issued notice to all respondents, who accepted notice through their respective counsel. The matter was adjourned with directions for filing of replies and rejoinders, and re-notified for hearing on 15.01.2027.
Novartis AG & Anr. (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited) v.Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary Novartis Healthcare Private Limited sued Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited for infringement of their registered and well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS', passing off, dilution, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendant's mark 'NOVOSYS' used for pharmaceutical products was deceptively similar. The matter was resolved through settlement, with the defendant undertaking to cease use of the impugned mark, clear existing stock, and withdraw/cancel its trademark registrations and applications. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, granted three months for exhaustion of existing stock, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the defendant's registrations and treat its pending applications as withdrawn.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's chain of title and right to maintain the rectification application, but arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This case involves a rectification application filed before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's standing and right to maintain the rectification application, tracing the chain of title through various agreements, but the arguments could not be concluded.
K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Indotech Switchgear And Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr.
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a trademark cancellation petition filed by K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd against Indotech Switchgear and Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking cancellation/removal of trademark registration No. 4314092 in Class 09. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications and issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2027.
Shubham Khandelwal Through Shubham Trading Company v.S.K. Trademark Through Proprietor Gaurav
This is a criminal revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in which the petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's counsel raised no objection to the condonation of delay. The court allowed the application, condoned the delay, called for the record, and listed the matter after two weeks.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Abbott GmbH & Anr. v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Abbott GmbH & Anr., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited from using the marks COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS, which were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered CREMAFFIN marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, with the defendant agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and withdraw its trademark application. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and granted the plaintiffs a refund of court fees.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
An Original Petition was filed by M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. before the Madras High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 (Class 30) granted in the name of the first respondent. The matter was listed under the caption 'memo of compromise,' and both parties submitted that they had arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court recorded the joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026 and disposed of the petition, with no order as to costs.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and a connected commercial suit after the parties settled their disputes through mediation. A Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026 was placed on record, pursuant to which the commercial suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the rectification petition was allowed by mutual consent. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and expunge the impugned trademark 'SOMI-MB' (application No. 5982177 in Class 5), and the plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire court fee.
M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr
This case concerns the execution of a decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and others restraining the Judgment Debtors from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.07.2026, under which the Judgment Debtors agreed to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Decree Holders. The Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, disposed of the execution petition in terms of the MoU, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited in court, and directed the Judgment Debtors to pay the remaining Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
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.