India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 71 · 2,115 total
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.
Theobroma Foods Private Limited v.Karan Narula And Ors (Theos Food Pvt. Ltd.)
The Delhi High Court finalized a complex trademark dispute between Theobroma Foods and Theos Food Pvt. Ltd., leading to a comprehensive decree based on an amicable settlement. The judgment clarified the usage rights for both 'THEOBROMA' and 'THEOS' in the confectionery market. Key terms include mutual non-opposition, allowing Theobroma nationwide expansion while restricting Theos to the Delhi-NCR region for its mark use.
H-D U. S. A., Llc v.Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of H-D U. S. A., LLC against Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off because the defendant's mark replicated the plaintiff's registered 'Eagle Logo/ Device mark.' Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection regarding the authority to file the suit, confirming that the Power of Attorney granted omnibus powers covering all intellectual property rights. The injunction mandates that the defendant cease dealing in infringing goods pending the final disposal of the suit.
The Delhi Public School Society v.Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society
This case revolves around a dispute between The Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) concerning the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement. DPSS had permitted AEWCS to use the 'Delhi Public School' name and logo for its school, but this usage was explicitly limited by the agreement. Upon termination of the JVA, DPSS sought an injunction against AEWCS for continued use of the brand identity. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that once the agreement ended, AEWCS lost all rights to use the IP, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop v.M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop, seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SRI MURUGAN IDLI SHOP.' The plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered trademark and copyright related to their business name and branding. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the defendant was not operating under the impugned name, leading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Robin Sebastian (CJ Buildware) v.Shyjumon Joseph
The Kerala High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of CJ Buildware against Shyjumon Joseph. The court found that despite a prior contractual agreement, the respondent began using a trademark ('SJ BUILDWARE') that was phonetically and visually deceptive to the plaintiff's registered mark ('CJ BUILDWARE'). Given the established reputation of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience, the court deemed it appropriate to restrain the defendant from continued use pending further proceedings.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
Cresset Capital Management Llc & Anr. v.Registrant Of Www.Cressetcapital.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Cresset Capital Management LLC against domain name registrants. The court recognized the global goodwill associated with the 'Cresset' mark, despite its lack of Indian registration, finding that several registered domains were being used to commit fraud and misrepresent the Plaintiffs' business. Consequently, the Court directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing websites, while also directing law enforcement to commence action against the perpetrators.
Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners) v.Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited
The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Phonepe Private Limited v.Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Phonepe Private Limited challenged Digipe Fintech Private Limited in the Madras High Court, seeking an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'DigiPe', alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Phonepe argued that its distinctive 'PhonePe' brand had immense goodwill and reputation in the digital payment sector. However, the court dismissed Phonepe's appeals, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's arguments across various legal proceedings, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons regarding alleged trademark infringement was settled between both parties. The Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased) & others v.1/183 & others
This case involved complex disputes among the partners and legal heirs of a newspaper publishing firm, Dinamalar. The core issue revolved around the status and ownership of the firm's trademark following its dissolution. The Madras High Court addressed several related civil suits and original applications concerning partnership rights and intellectual property.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Trivigya Bioscience
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.Sanku Soap Works
Bharathi Consumer Care Products filed a suit against Sanku Soap Works alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiff claimed violations related to the deceptively similar use of their registered trademark 'SILVER FOAM XXX' and copyright in its artistic label/trade dress, as well as passing off. The initial prayers sought permanent injunctions and damages.
V. R. Holdings v.Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court questioned the correctness of a single judge's decision that dismissed an appellant's petition for rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal debate centered on whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable, particularly in light of restrictions imposed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Given the serious dispute and potential impact on pending cancellation proceedings, the Court granted an interim stay on the impugned judgment to balance the interests of both parties.
M/s. Wockhardt Limited v.Apex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Ennar Enterprises
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Ennar Enterprises alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark ('GOLD PRIME') and passing off their edible oil product. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions protecting their registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright in packaging design. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.M. Senthilkumar
The applicant/plaintiff sought continuation of previously granted exparte ad-interim orders related to a passing off claim. Despite serving notice, the defendants remained absent. The court decided to continue the existing interim orders until further orders.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by Bluechip Amusements against Crazy Concepts and Mazes. The dismissal was due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner informed the court that they no longer operated their outlet under the name 'HORROR HOUSE.' This outcome highlights the importance of active litigation management in trademark disputes.
M/S Sharad Enterprises v.M/S Saboo Emery Stone Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/S Sharad Enterprises, which sought to overturn a lower court's rejection of its plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's trademark infringement suit was subject to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court found that since the respondent had filed an application for temporary injunction and pleaded recurring business loss, the matter clearly contemplated urgency, thus exempting it from the strictures of Section 12-A.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Britannia Industries Ltd. alleging imitation of its trade dress for biscuits. The defendant sought to reject the plaint on grounds including lack of urgency, failure to comply with pre-mediation requirements, and jurisdictional challenges. The Madras High Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction and that the case warranted consideration despite procedural objections.
Walgreen Co. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Walgreen Co. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'Finest Nutrition' in Class 5. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant voluntarily submitted a memo requesting its withdrawal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
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.