India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 125 · 3,740 total
Harvinder Kumar v.M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction in favor of Harvinder Kumar regarding the infringement of his registered trademark. The dispute centered on M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s continued use of batteries and chargers bearing the plaintiff's mark after their agreement was terminated. The court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, granting directions to the respondent to cease using the marked assets and return them within one week.
M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v.Union of India
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
Ube Industries Limited & Anr. v.S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ube Industries Limited, granting a permanent injunction against S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors. for trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'UBE' mark. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated their long-standing use and registration of the distinctive trademark across various industries, despite the defendants claiming prior usage. This judgment reinforces the importance of established goodwill and registered rights in preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v.Babu Lal Aggarwal Trading As Modern Namkeen Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'MODERN' (No. 915745) from the register, alleging that the respondent has adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark and trade dress. While granting procedural exemptions to the petitioner, the court proceeded with the main petition by issuing notice to all parties. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing after both sides file their respective replies.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
Sreevidya Kumaramkandath v.Alkaabi Est & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Sreevidya Kumaramkandath seeking the cancellation (revocation) of the registered device mark 'TEATIME' held by Alkaabi Est & Anr. The court noted the petitioner's claim that the impugned mark causes confusion due to its deceptive similarity to the petitioner's trademark. While initial procedural issues regarding party addresses were addressed, the core dispute over trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is set for further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Kulbir Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited's petition seeking cancellation of a competing trademark, 'ROGER'. The court found that the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act due to non-use by the respondent. Given that the respondent failed to appear or file a reply despite being served, the petitioner's claims regarding extensive use and goodwill were deemed unrebutted, leading to the successful cancellation of the mark.
Unique Entrepreneurs And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant is using the deceptively similar trademark 'REALLY' against the plaintiff's registered mark 'RALLI', leading to infringement and passing off. The court granted various leaves sought by the plaintiff, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to proceed.
Shankar Engineering Works And Ors v.Sankar Iron Engineering Works Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants concerning an alleged mark used by the defendants for identical products. The plaintiffs argued that there was urgency and sufficient cause to bypass the pre-mediation process.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
Ashok Bhutani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Ashok Bhutani successfully challenged the Trademark Registry in the Delhi High Court regarding the non-renewal of his word mark 'SNOWPEAK'. The petitioner argued that the failure to receive mandatory O-3 notices prevented him from filing timely renewal applications. Recognizing the registry's lapse, the court directed the respondents to issue all pending renewal certificates and subsequently restore and renew the trademarks for a further ten-year period.
Jai Prakash Singhal v.Tirupati Structurals Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining Tirupati Structurals Limited (the defendant) from using the trademark 'MM TIRUPATI' due to its deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court clarified that even if a portion of a trademark is subject to a disclaimer, the overall composite mark can still be protected against passing off. This ruling reinforces the principle that established goodwill and consumer confusion are paramount in protecting brand identity.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.
Leayan Global Private Limited v.Comfort X India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Leayan Global Private Limited and Comfort X India & Anr., granting a request for adjournment. While arguments were pending regarding the distinctiveness of competing trademarks like 'COMFORT WALK,' the court allowed the petitioner to present additional documents despite their recent filing. The hearing was re-notified for December 17, 2024, contingent upon Leayan Global depositing costs.
Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a suit filed by Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their 'MAHARAJA' brand. The core issue was unauthorized sellers latching onto the plaintiffs' product listings on the e-commerce platform, using the plaintiff's trademark in invoices. While the suit was ultimately disposed of without a final judgment on damages, the Court issued critical mandatory directions compelling Flipkart to actively prevent this practice and immediately disable the 'latching-on' feature upon notification from the plaintiffs.
Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited v.Great Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
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.