India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 71 · 2,115 total
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v.Svn Prestige Garden
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union Of India
Umaid Mohonot appealed against an order dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellants argued that the notice was invalid because related disputes concerning the 'Arrow' trademark were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court ultimately held that the administrative action taken by the Registrar was distinct from the private inter se dispute, thus upholding the validity of the show cause notice.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s. Indianpasand Inc., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SANGU) and copyright in its artistic label design. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing goods. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s.Indianpasand Inc., alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its 'SANGU' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SHIPPY.' Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in terms of a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Jb Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Jb Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PRADEEP' and copyright violation concerning its packaging logo. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory disclosure. However, the court noted that both parties had submitted a Deed of Settlement dated 31.01.2023, under which the suit was withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case.
Merck KGa-A v.Tablets (India) Limited
Merck KGa-A filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the registration of a trademark application by Tablets (India) Limited. The appeal sought to set aside an earlier order and prevent the issuance of a Registration Certificate for Application No.887909 in Class 5. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, Merck KGa-A chose to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Tv 18 Broadcast Limited v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction concerning trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the similarity between the marks "Bhaiyaji Kahin" and "Bhaiya Ji Superhit," used by two major media houses. The court found that, prima facie, there was no likelihood of confusion due to differences in show format (news debate vs. scripted infotainment) and the distinct channels on which they aired. Furthermore, the court held that the acquired distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark could not be determined at this interlocutory stage.
M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd v.M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd
This case involves a dispute arising from a licensing contract between M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd and M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd. The respondent alleged that the petitioner violated the non-compete clause by operating a competing business under the brand name 'Team Satyam' at the licensed premises. The matter was adjudicated through arbitration, leading to an award of damages in favor of the respondent. The Delhi High Court upheld this arbitral award, finding no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's findings regarding the breach and the calculation of loss.
Varun Chopra & Jagdaman Kumar Chopra v.Shyam Sunder Chopra And Sons, Sampan Chopra, Vaibhav Chopra, Samvitee Foods Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning a lower court's decision to reject their trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether Section 20 of the CPC (territorial jurisdiction) was applicable despite provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the special provisions of the Trademark Act do not oust the general principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the plaint rejection application.
Three Plaintiffs v.Revision Petitioner (Defendant in original suit)
A suit was filed by three plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for using the trademark 'IONS'. The defendant challenged the plaint, which was dismissed. The present Civil Revision Petition challenged this dismissal, arguing that Article 227 grants unfettered power of superintendence. The Court held that Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, and thus dismissed the revision petition.
UltraTech Cement Ltd. v.Ultratech Paints and Allied Products
The plaintiffs filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants. The court allowed the application, granting an interim order restraining the defendants from using the impugned name 'ULTRATECH' and associated domain names to infringe upon or pass off goods related to the well-known trade mark 'UltraTech'.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Suresh K.K.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed an appeal challenging a lower court's judgment regarding trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Super Wash – 555' washing soap. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using identical wrappers to deceive the public. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove prior use due to the inadmissibility of photocopied documents. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendants' business was not within the court's limits.
ashok kumar sethi v.amazon technologies inc
Ashok Kumar Sethi and another sued Amazon Technologies Inc. for copyright infringement and passing off related to Henna Hair Colour products sold via Amazon's internet platform, alleging the use of identical labels 'Black Gold and Amin's'. The plaintiffs claimed significant advertising costs and a long-standing business presence under the trademark since 1993.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the suit filed by Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and others. The court found that since the disputed trademark was successfully removed from the register via a rectification petition, and the defendant provided affidavits confirming no commercial use of the mark had ever occurred, all prayers in the original suit were rendered infructuous. This decision effectively closed the infringement proceedings.
Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Hindware Limited v.Anil Kumar & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, Hindware Limited successfully negotiated an amicable settlement with Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff agreed to drop its claim for damages provided that the defendant withdraws his pending trademark application and commits not to use the disputed mark 'HINDWARE' on his goods. This order marks a pragmatic resolution in the ongoing dispute.
Lt Foods Limited v.Dawat Biryani & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Lt Foods Limited and Dawat Biryani & Anr. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court mediation. The defendants acknowledged Lt Foods as the proprietor of the well-known 'DAWAT' trademark and committed not to use any deceptively similar marks, such as 'Dawat Biryani,' in a manner that suggests affiliation or causes infringement or passing off. This resolution provides clear legal certainty regarding the protection of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the case of Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr. While granting exemption and condoning a delay of 21 days, the court proceeded with the main petition (W.P.(C)-IPD 25/2023). Notice was issued to all respondents, setting a timeline for them to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks, indicating that substantive litigation on the matter is moving forward.
Great Galleon Ventures Limited v.Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor Of Dharmesh Distillery & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex-parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of Great Galleon Ventures Limited (Plaintiff) against Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor (Defendant). The court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning their 'GOA' brand. Crucially, the court dismissed the Defendant's challenge to territorial jurisdiction, noting that the plaint explicitly stated the goods were being sold in Delhi, thereby maintaining the injunction pending final disposal of the suit.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Mr. Vinod K. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited against Defendant No. 1 for infringing its trademarks ('AQUAGUARD', 'PAANI KA DOCTOR') and copyrights related to water purification systems and spares. The court also awarded damages and costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment underscores that a defendant who evades court proceedings by non-appearance can be held liable for damages, preventing them from benefiting from their evasion.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Pramod Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited against Pramod Jain and others. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding advance service to defendants and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the defendants for inventorying and seizing counterfeit spares bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrighted get-ups.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Santosh Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes against Santosh Nath and others. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises to prepare inventories and seize stocks bearing the impugned marks, signaling a strong judicial intent to protect the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Vensat Bio & Ors.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment against Defendant No. 3 (Vensat Bio & Ors.) due to sufficient cause of absence. Simultaneously, the court recognized the strong prima facie case presented by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like ORISON/SPORTEK in relation to pharmaceutical products. This dual outcome highlights the procedural complexities alongside the substantive strength of trademark infringement claims.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
Amit Jain v.Vikas Gupta
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v.Abhinav Mehta And Anr.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed procedural matters concerning an undertaking filed by the respondent. Since the crucial undertaking was not placed on record and the petitioner had not received a copy, the judge directed the parties to coordinate documentation. Consequently, the hearing was re-notified for June 1, 2023, allowing both sides time to ensure all necessary documents are properly presented.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
In this case concerning online trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court delivered a mixed judgment based on joint compromises and ex-parte proceedings. The court decreed the suit in favor of Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against Defendant No. 1 (Flipkart) based on agreed compromise terms. Furthermore, it mandated specific takedown procedures for Defendant No. 2 (Amazon) to address unauthorized use of Sirona's trademarks. Finally, an injunction was passed against other sellers (Defendants Nos. 3-13) who were found to be passing off counterfeit goods.
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.