India Trademark Cases
2,066 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 69 · 2,066 total
Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited v.Demifine Fashion Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner, Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the registration of the trademark 'DEMIFINE' (Registration No. 6264164 in Class 14) held by the respondents. The court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking summoning of the complete record of the impugned trademark from the Registrar of Trade Marks. Notice was issued to the respondents, with timelines set for filing replies and rejoinders.
Chittepu Lakshmi Reddy v.Sri Sitarama Educational Society
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a direction to the trial court (VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa) for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.46/2021, a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction pending for over five years. The petitioners relied on Judicial Notification No.3/SO/2016 prescribing a 24-month disposal timeline for certain categories of cases. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, declined to fix a rigid time-bound schedule and instead directed the trial court to endeavour for early disposal based on the seniority of pending cases.
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v.John Does & Ors
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd filed a commercial suit against John Does and others for infringement of its trademarks and passing off, alleging that unknown persons were fraudulently representing themselves as employees or agents of HCL through deceptive emails, calls, and messages to dupe the public. The Delhi High Court allowed the impleading of proposed Defendant No. 24 based on KYC details furnished by Defendant No. 18/SBI, permitted amendment of the plaint, and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 20 to 24 from using HCL's trademarks.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Manish Jain & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned trademark 'BIGFLU'. The court disposed of two interlocutory applications—one for exemption and another seeking leave to file additional documents—and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 23rd November 2026 for further proceedings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr.
This is an interlocutory order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 921/2026) filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation, leave to file additional documents, and an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. The court granted the exemption and leave applications, directed registration of the plaint, issued summons, and issued notice on the stay application with directions for filing reply and rejoinder.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Ors.
The petitioner, Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal, cancellation, or expungement of the impugned trademark registration bearing No. 1320709 in Class 09. The matter was received on transfer from the Co-ordinate IPD Bench as connected matters were pending before the court. The court allowed the application for summoning electronic records from the Registrar of Trademarks, granted exemption subject to just exceptions, and issued notice to the respondents with directions to file reply within 30 days.
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India against the Registrar of Trademarks. The matter could not be taken up on the scheduled date because the Supreme Court had directed the presiding judge to hear a certain batch of matters on a day-to-day basis. The court re-notified the matter for hearing on 18th December 2026.
Rajat Gupta v.The State NCT Of Delhi
Rajat Gupta filed an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi High Court in connection with FIR No. 109/2026 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to manufacturing and sale of counterfeit automobile spare parts bearing trademarks of reputed companies. The State opposed bail, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary as the applicant was part of an organized counterfeit syndicate. The Court observed that the only incriminating material against the applicant was the disclosure statement of his brother Harshit (who had already been granted bail) and directed the applicant to join investigation, with no further precipitative steps to be taken till the next date of hearing.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks Government of India Trademarks Registry
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing on 22 September 2026, with no substantive ruling or detailed reasoning provided in the order.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.
This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
State v.Manoj Kumar
The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v.Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Getmohit Cab Private Limited and others for allegedly using the 'BHARATBENZ' mark and associated device marks/logo on buses. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, and the Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
MLCU Pvt. Ltd. (Marachhiya and Laxmi Satyam Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) v.RBI Through Regional Officer
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of iron pipes, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of its cash credit accounts into term loans, reduction of interest rates, grant of a 12-month moratorium, and enhancement of credit limits up to Rs. 2 Crores from ICICI Bank. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that ICICI Bank is a private financial entity not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it is regulated by the RBI. The court further held that the reliefs sought were contractual and commercial in nature and did not involve any public duty or statutory obligation.
Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.
This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery
This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a single judge's order that vacated an interim injunction and revoked leave granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant claimed infringement and passing off based on the defendant using 'Really' while the appellant used 'RALLI'. The court found evidence (participation in a 2018 fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges) establishing that the appellant was aware of the respondent's product use since at least 2018, dismissing the appeal.
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
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.