India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 123 · 3,667 total
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Irvinder Laur Chadha v.Garnish Electronics Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed to remove the trademark 'GARNISH'. The court found that the registration had expired on June 4, 2022. Since the statutory grace period for restoration and renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, had lapsed in 2023, the court directed the Registry to remove the mark. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark registrations.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Primestack Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.John Doe And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Primestack Pte. Ltd against John Doe and others regarding the infringement of its registered trademark 'CoinDCX'. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss was likely, and the balance of convenience favored granting relief. The order specifically restrained unauthorized use of the trademarks and directed various defendants to suspend operations of associated accounts, domains, and phone numbers.
Is Eg Halal India Private Limited v.Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan Live News & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan Live News, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court restrained the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'HINDUSTAN LIVE NEWS' and directed Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram) and Google LLC (YouTube) to immediately remove infringing content. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect established brand goodwill in the digital media space.
Nirmal Seeds Private Limited v.M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft against M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited. The court granted permanent injunctions and authorized the immediate seizure of goods bearing deceptively similar marks at the defendants' premises. Furthermore, it appointed Local Commissioners to inspect inventory and books of accounts related to the alleged infringement, providing strong protection for Hell Energy's brand in the Indian market.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.
Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited v.Idealpe Matrix Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited against Idealpe Matrix Private Limited. While granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and directed that summons be issued to the defendants. The order also detailed the plaintiffs' claims regarding their prior use of the 'FRONTIER' mark across various domains and products, setting the stage for the substantive trial.
Scrum Alliance, Inc. v.M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Scrum Alliance, Inc. against M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. and others. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were deceptively adopting trademarks like 'CSM' and 'Certified Scrum Master' for education services, misleading the public into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using these confusingly similar marks until the final hearing.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the suit filed by Havells India Ltd against Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors. The core dispute involves alleged fraudulent investment schemes operating under the 'HAVELLS' brand name. Crucially, the court issued significant interim directions, ordering defendants to block access to infringing websites and provide complete disclosure/block of KYC details associated with accounts used for these illegal activities. Furthermore, procedural matters were settled, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of electronic evidence.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh v.Pawan Sharma
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was using identical/similar trademarks ('BOSS HUGO BOSS', 'BOSS', etc.) in relation to clothing and garments, causing confusion. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Chaitanya Food Product v.M/s.Honey Food Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (TM) No.277 of 2023 after the petitioner, M/s.Chaitanya Food Product, sought permission to withdraw the case. The dispute concerning the registered service mark No.3091641 was reported as settled between the parties. This outcome highlights how parties can resolve trademark disputes outside of a full judicial ruling.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v.Smt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Piyush Goel
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Piyush Goel alleging infringement of its trademarks, including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design', as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was clandestinely stocking and selling inferior quality jeans using deceptively similar marks. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
M/s Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd v.Akshay Uttamchand Jain Trading As Micon Industries
The plaintiff, Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using the deceptively similar trademark 'MICON', infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BIOCON'. The court found that the resemblance was close enough to constitute passing off and infringement.
Pfizer Products Inv. v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Pfizer Products Inv. against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. The court noted that the respondents had withdrawn their trademark registration application, rendering the original dispute moot and infructuous. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Amul Brush Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the ongoing dispute between Satnam Brush Industry and Amul Brush Company. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction to Satnam Brush Industry, recognizing that the defendants' packaging and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established brand 'AMBER'. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' books of accounts and infringing products, signaling a deep dive into the alleged infringement and passing off.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision dismissing an opposition against a similar mark (ZORA). The appellant argued that the use of ZORA by a bag manufacturer would exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-known trademark, ZARA, particularly in relation to textiles. While the court granted procedural relief regarding delay condonation and exemption from filing copies, it issued notice to the opposing party (Respondent No. 2) to file a reply, indicating that the substantive dispute over trademark infringement and passing off is yet to be decided.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Jagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Bhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Rspl Health Private Limited, confirming a prior compromise reached with Respondent No. 1 in TM-84/2021. As part of this settlement, the respondent undertook to cancel their registered trademark 'SAKSHI XPERIA' and withdraw all related applications for marks containing 'XPERT' or 'XPERIA'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending applications, upholding the terms of the compromise.
Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v.Tickmytrip Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions filed by Makemytrip seeking the rectification and cancellation of Tickmytrip's registered trademarks (Nos. 2801898 & 2801899). The court accepted a written undertaking from Tickmytrip stating that they do not intend to renew these trademark registrations once their current term expires on September 2, 2024. Since the marks will lapse, the court found no necessity for further orders regarding cancellation.
Just Lime My Child Foundation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Just Lime My Child Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration of the word mark 'GIRL POWER PROJECT.' The court found that the Respondent erred by dissecting the composite mark and incorrectly deeming it descriptive. Crucially, the court emphasized that a composite mark must be evaluated as a whole, not in isolation, thereby upholding the distinctiveness of the foundation's brand.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
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.