India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 71 · 2,115 total
Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods v.Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BOOM BOOM'. The court noted prima facie merit in the appellant's claim regarding the long-standing use of the trademark since 2000. Given discrepancies in the starting date of use found by the lower court, the High Court granted a stay on the District Judge's previous order while reserving further consideration of the matter.
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh & Anr.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Sardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.
Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.
M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp v.Uma Impact Private Limited
In a case concerning trade dress infringement, the Delhi High Court facilitated ongoing settlement talks between M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp and Uma Impact Private Limited. The court confirmed that the ad-interim injunction, previously limited to the trade dress of three specific products, would continue during the pendency of the suit. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve disputes amicably, with the Plaintiff proposing a decree based on the Division Bench's order while leaving the trademark dispute over the slogan 'BORN TO WIN' open for separate resolution.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Mr. Kunhimoideen Kazhungumthottathil
The Delhi High Court issued an order on October 31, 2023, directing the parties to proceed with the completion of pleadings in the trademark dispute. The court set a date for further proceedings while granting specific opportunities for both the plaintiff and defendant to file rejoinders in various interlocutory applications (IAs). This procedural step indicates that the case is moving forward through the discovery and pleading phase.
M/S Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Pvt. , Ltd.
The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Chirec Public School challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to stay an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established that the respondent's trademark registration was prima facie invalid, thereby warranting a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that despite averments in the written statement, the plea of invalidity lacked sufficient substantiation and could not be inferred as prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Commercial Court's decision to proceed with the infringement suit was upheld.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Aman Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application in a trademark infringement suit brought by the Hero Group against various defendants. The court upheld the previous injunction granted on June 1, 2022, which protected the Plaintiffs' trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero') and related intellectual property. Specifically, the existing orders directing the disclosure of details for infringing domain names (like www.elctricbikedelearship.com) and freezing associated bank accounts were maintained throughout the pendency of the suit.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.K. Sarinivas Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. against K. Sarinivas Reddy for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SRI AROGYA,' coupled with a deceptively similar color scheme, get-up, and packaging design, infringed upon the plaintiff's registered mark 'AROKYA.' Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction to stop the unauthorized use and directed the defendant to pay costs.
landmark crafts private limited v.sohan lal gupta
M/s Landmark Crafts Private Limited sued M/s Sohan Lal Gupta alleging infringement of its trademark 'HP'. The dispute centered on the identical packaging and color combination used by both parties for competing products, raising concerns about passing off. The Defendants agreed to change their product's packaging.
Mohd Shah Fahad Trading as Shah Enterprises v.Raghav Nathani
Mohd. Shah Fahad filed a suit against Raghav Nathani and others, alleging that Defendant No. 1 was infringing his registered trademark 'Classio' by using 'Classio Fashion' on e-commerce platforms, causing monetary loss and damage to goodwill. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's suit due to repeated willful and deliberate non-compliance with court orders and failure to prove a prima facie case.
Omrf Pipes And Products v.Itarsi Pipe Sales & Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against pipe manufacturers who were allegedly passing off their products. The court held that while the appellants lacked formal trademark registration for the specific color combination, the similarity between the 'RIVERLINE' (appellant) and 'METROSTAR' (respondent) product colors and shapes had the potential to mislead an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, the High Court granted the interim injunction, emphasizing that courts should assess potential consumer confusion from the perspective of a common person.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.
Britannia Industries Limited v.Amar Biscuit Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited against Amar Biscuit Private Limited. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'GOOD TIME' with a deceptively similar color combination and trade dress to Britannia's established 'GOOD DAY' butter cookies was likely to cause consumer confusion. Given the enormous goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's brand, the court ruled that immediate action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Capital Tv And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tv Today Network Limited against Capital TV and others. The court found a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, noting that the defendants were imitating the plaintiff's distinctive program names and logos across various digital platforms. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar marks for news/current affairs programs and ordered to take down all infringing links online.
Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. v.C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of two petitions filed by Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. against C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. The challenge to the respondent's marks, which were under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, was rendered moot because the impugned trademarks had expired and subsequently been removed from the Register due to non-renewal. Consequently, the petitioner sought and received permission to withdraw the proceedings.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Kent Cables Private Limited challenged the inclusion of the trade mark 'KENT' in the list of well-known trademarks, which was advertised by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the matter involves complex procedural and substantive issues regarding the declaration of a well-known mark. After reviewing previous directions and legal precedents, the court issued notice to the respondents while keeping open questions of maintainability and jurisdiction, setting the stage for further detailed arguments.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of their trademark application by The Registrar of Trademarks. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023 as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd v.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.
Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel v.Husenali Anwarali Charaniya
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged a lower court's decision to reject a plaint filed by Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel against Husenali Anwarali Charaniya. The original suit sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement (KANTI KAKA) and copyright violation concerning Betel Nut products. The core legal issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, as the plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the suit was filed in Dahod when both parties operated primarily from Surat or Surendranagar.
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.