India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 71 · 2,115 total
M/S S. S. Hospitality v.M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd
This revision petition challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court regarding a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd against M/S S. S. Hospitality. The petitioner argued that since the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and the respondent had subordinate offices there, the suit should have been filed in Chandigarh. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent-plaintiff did not possess a subordinate office in Chandigarh, thus validating the original court's decision to allow the suit to proceed in Delhi.
Knitpro International v.Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Knitpro International against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of a trademark application for a pattern on a knitting needle. The court found that the subject mark was inherently distinctive, capable of distinguishing goods, and that the objections raised under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act were untenable. Consequently, the court set aside the previous refusal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pankaj Kumar Patel
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Dr.Reddy S Laboratories Ltd v.Ancalima Lifesciences Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to frame additional issues and consolidate a related trademark rectification petition into the ongoing passing off suit. The court noted that since the challenge to the defendant's trademark validity was already pending in a separate rectification case, there was no need to frame new issues in the current suit. Consequently, the court ordered the consolidation of the rectification petition with the present suit to ensure unified trial proceedings before the Joint Registrar.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Sunshine Velvet Private Limited v.Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders while addressing an interim application. The court noted that Defendant No. 3 was yet to be served and directed fresh service. Crucially, regarding the core dispute, the court confirmed the existing interim order concerning Defendants 1 and 2, despite their claim of changing the firm's name from 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS' to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS'. The matter is set for further pleading completion.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Devashish Rattan And Ors
Inter Ikea Systems Bv successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Devashish Rattan and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were slavishly copying over 2300 product listings, including proprietary names, images, and descriptions from the IKEA website, falsely claiming association with the brand. The court found a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm to the internationally renowned 'IKEA' trademark and trade dress.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
In a significant step toward addressing alleged infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., to appoint local commissioners against the defendants. The court directed two advocates to visit the defendant's premises in Delhi and Siliguri to conduct an inventory of goods bearing the trademark 'HUALI' or possessing a similar trade dress. This order provides the plaintiff with crucial evidence gathering power, allowing them to proceed with their claim regarding trademark and trade dress infringement.
Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited / Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. v.Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. / Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the ongoing commercial suits between Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited and Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. The disputes cover various aspects including rent suspension during lockdown, claims for equipment costs, return of property, trademark infringement (specifically regarding 'Noci-In-Q' and 'Asaya'), and validity of lease termination. By framing these issues, the court set the stage for detailed evidence recording on July 21, 2023.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Pradeep Kumar Singh and Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Pradeep Kumar Singh and others. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the well-known 'KHADI' trademark, successfully argued that the Defendants were deceptively using the mark 'ISOBEL KHADI GLOBAL' to ride on its goodwill. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark and maintaining the status quo on their website until further hearing.
Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Production Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple connected suits involving Jagran Prakashan Ltd against various related entities concerning the use of the 'JAGRAN' trademark. The court noted significant changes, including a company name change and another entity being under liquidation. Given the lack of compliance with previous orders regarding business operations, the court granted an extended deadline for defendants to file affidavits detailing their current business activities. Furthermore, the parties were directed to explore mediation as a potential resolution pathway.
Red Bull Ag v.Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading As Vandana Beverages & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Red Bull Ag sought an interim injunction against Vandana Beverages for allegedly using similar marks and trade dresses. The Delhi High Court granted a temporary restraint order, compelling Defendants No. 1 and 3 to immediately cease the use of the disputed marks and remove online advertisements. Crucially, the court allowed them to continue selling existing stock already manufactured and distributed, balancing protection of IP rights with commercial realities.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf v.Paras Agarwal T/A M/S Purushottam Agarwal and Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf, against the Defendants. The suit alleged infringement and passing off concerning registered trademarks and copyright related to jewellery products. Given the strong goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's 'MD' marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the Defendants' use of similar marks like 'MD PAYAL', the court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff. The injunction restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks until further hearing.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, specifically concerning the use of similar containers and labels on dairy products like Ghee. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit, which was subsequently granted by the Madras High Court.
Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras Enterprises v.Pragya Trading Company, Kaserate
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.
M/S Malabar Gold Private Limited v.Mr. M. Manuvel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed interim applications in the trademark dispute between Malabar Gold Private Limited and Mr. M. Manuvel. The defendant argued that the existing injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to disclose specific conditions imposed by the Trade Marks Registry regarding their trademarks, particularly concerning the exclusive right over 'M' or 'MALABAR'. The court accepted submissions from both parties and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited
Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr v.The Supreme Industries Ltd
This Delhi High Court order addresses a revision petition filed by M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr against The Supreme Industries Ltd. The underlying suit concerns permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement and passing off. While an exemption application was allowed, the main stay application concerning the striking off of the defendant's defence has been listed for further consideration on March 24, 2023.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Anr.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.
Smt. Veena Kumaravel v.Acit, Central Circle - 2 (1)
Smt. Veena Kumaravel appealed an order confirming the levy of capital gains tax on Rs. 6.5 crores received from M/s Groom India Saloon & Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt upon transfer of trademark 'Naturals'. The assessee argued it was only a license deposit, not a sale or transfer.
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata v.M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited
The Revenue appealed an order dropping demands for Service Tax on royalties paid by M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited to a foreign company for using licensed trademarks and patents related to tea production. The Tribunal held that since the trade marks and patents were not registered in India, they did not qualify as Intellectual Property Rights under Indian law 'for the time being in force', thus making the royalty payment non-taxable.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
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.