India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 125 · 3,740 total
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Mohammed Faisal T.P. v.The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.
Psyco Remedies Ltd. v.Micro Labs Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment concerns a petition filed by Psyco Remedies Ltd. seeking rectification of a trademark held by Micro Labs Ltd. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the rectification request, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Both sides agreed to withdraw related litigation and mutually refrained from taking further action against each other concerning the subject trademarks. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving Center v.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Anr.
Pt Tech, Llc challenged the actions of The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in accepting a counter statement beyond the statutory period under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding procedural violations related to evidence filing. Crucially, the court directed that the proceedings concerning opposition application no. 1307531 shall remain suspended until the next hearing date, providing temporary relief to the petitioner.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
Ask Automotive Limited v.A.S.K. Enterprises
The plaintiff, Ask Automotive Limited, a major supplier of automotive friction products under the well-known trade mark 'ASK', filed a suit against A.S.K. Enterprises for infringement of its trademark and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally manufacturing and selling goods bearing the identical trademark 'ASK' to deceive the public.
Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of infringement against Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors. The court recognized that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was likely to cause market confusion and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who holds registered trademarks and copyrights in 'GOLDMEDAL'. This order temporarily halts the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing infringing labels until the final hearing.
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
M/s Rspl Limited v.M/s Sunil Store (Proprietor & Owner) Trading as M/s Parth Store
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Sunil Store, alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights related to detergent products. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark GHARI/GHADI and passing off goods as belonging to the plaintiff.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Levi Strauss & Co v.Ashok Woven Labels And Ors
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks, specifically 'LEVI's' and 'LEVI'S PREMIUM'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit labels and goods using the protected marks. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited v.Jayashree
In a dispute over the 'MANAPURAM' trademark, V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited successfully reached a settlement with Jayashree before the Madras High Court. The parties agreed that the Petitioner has prior rights to the mark and that the Respondent will cancel her existing registration (No. 5109630) and transfer associated domain names within ten days. This compromise resolves the petition seeking removal of the infringing trademark entry.
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited approached the Kerala High Court seeking intervention regarding pending trademark applications before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai. The petitioner sought a direction for timely disposal of their applications (Exts.P1 and P2). Recognizing the procedural backlog but acknowledging the need for resolution, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to take earnest efforts to pass orders on the pending matters within a stipulated period of four months.
Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
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.