India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 71 · 2,115 total
Eastman Auto And Power Ltd v.Mr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Eastman Auto And Power Ltd against Mr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House. The plaintiff, a major battery manufacturer, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks by using confusingly similar marks like 'EASTPOWER' on batteries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
Manohar Singh v.Shyam Singh
Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr
In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Shri Dhruv Gupta v.M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta against M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited concerning the trademark 'UJALA'. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions for alleged infringement, passing off, and dilution. Given that the original owner of the mark is under insolvency proceedings (NCLT), the court deemed it necessary to issue notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) to ascertain their position before proceeding with the case.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
Ask Automotive Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar (Manoj Mudgal)
The plaintiff company, ASK Automotive Pvt Ltd, filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant, Manoj Mudgal, was manufacturing and selling goods (brake shoes) bearing the identical or deceptively similar trademark/trade dress 'ASK', thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrights. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road. The court noted that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, the judge requested the mediator to expedite the proceedings and listed the case for further hearing on December 7, 2023.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses and Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd seeking removal of a trademark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to repeated difficulties in serving notice and locating the petitioner at the specified address. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against Apollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, alleging infringement of its registered design and trademark, as well as passing off their beer products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, accounting of profits, destruction of infringing goods, and damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed by the court upon the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Ved Prakash Malhotra (M/s. S.P. Products) v.M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against a trademark application ('BLACK GOLD'). The court analyzed claims of similarity and prior use between 'BLACK N GOLD' (appellant) and 'BLACK GOLD' (respondent). While acknowledging the marks are nearly identical, the court found that the respondent successfully established honest concurrent use dating back to 1992. Consequently, the respondent was granted the benefit of Section 12, but their rights were narrowly restricted solely to henna hair dye products.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v.Garvit Khandelwal, Trading As Ektarfa Garments & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, Retail Royalty Company & Anr., against Garvit Khandelwal (Ektarfa) for trademark infringement involving 'American Eagle' apparel. Despite the defendant claiming lack of knowledge and offering a settlement, the court found him liable due to his previous conduct as an infringer. The suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an award of Rs. 3,00,000/- in damages.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Sauss Home Products concerning the 'Robin Bird' device mark. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter or owner of the distinctive mark and artistic work used on their respective products. The court has directed both parties to file comprehensive evidence, including marketing materials and advertisements, to substantiate their claims of priority. Furthermore, several applications regarding territorial jurisdiction, stays, and cancellation petitions are pending, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a civil suit against Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions for infringing the 'MALOXINE' trademark and copyrighted carton design, as well as damages for passing off. The original prayer sought to restrain the defendant from using similar marks or designs on pharmaceutical products. However, given that the plaintiff company had been wound up and remained inactive in prosecuting this very old suit since 1998, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain v.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain filed applications alleging that Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India was continuing to use the protected Trade Mark 'SAINT-GOBAIN' for selling toughened glasses after their contract had been terminated. The respondents raised defenses regarding lack of compliance with mediation, contractual relationship, and arbitration clauses.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Madras High Court upheld the interim injunction granted against the defendant for infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress related to 'Good Day' biscuits. The court found that the adoption of an identical blue color scheme by the competitor, Sunfeast, amounted to passing off and confusing the public. However, in a concession to the defense, the court permitted the existing stock of the offending product (23.7 tonnes) to be sold.
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.