India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 123 · 3,667 total
Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching
This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in favor of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media intermediaries. The court addressed urgent concerns regarding sophisticated AI-generated 'deepfake' videos impersonating the NSE's MD & CEO, which were used to promote fraudulent stock picking schemes. The order mandates that the platforms immediately remove these unauthorized deepfakes and infringing content, while also compelling them to disclose details of the unknown perpetrators involved in the misuse of the NSE trademark.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Mrs Arti Gupta & Anr. v.Puran Rana & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mrs Arti Gupta against Puran Rana, leading to the cancellation of the trademark 'KONVIO NEER' registered in Class 35. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the mark since 2018, while the respondent obtained registration much later in 2022. Citing provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the High Court ruled that the subsequent registration by the respondent was not made in good faith and constituted a contravention of statutory rights.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Asian Paints Limited v.John Doe And Others
Asian Paints Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court granted orders directing various parties—including Domain Name Registrars, banks, and mobile service providers—to suspend specific infringing websites and freeze associated bank accounts. This decisive order aims to immediately halt the sale of counterfeit products using the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark across e-commerce platforms.
Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court overturned a trademark refusal order in favor of Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd. The appeal was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, as the appellant claimed they were never properly served with the Show Cause Notice before the Examiner's hearing. Citing established legal precedents, the court held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration after granting due process.
Varun Chopra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Varun Chopra against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf. The court allowed the main suit to proceed after resolving jurisdictional issues and granting various procedural exemptions, including those related to document filing and advance service. Crucially, the court referred the dispute to mediation, encouraging the parties to explore an amicable settlement despite the clear allegations of passing off and trademark infringement.
Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd v.Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd in its suit against Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental regarding the alleged infringement of 'DOCTOR PILLOW'. The court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises, aiming to gather evidence of counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and condoned a delay in filing the suit, paving the way for the main litigation.
Modi Paints And Varnish Works v.Sanjay Gupta And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for the rectification and removal of the 'MODI CRYL' trademark. The court found that the trademark, registered in the name of Sanjay Gupta, had lapsed as its renewal was due but never completed after May 21, 2018. Since the mark was no longer subsisting, the petitioner's request for its removal was satisfied.
M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited v.Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
The Chhattisgarh High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited (owner of GOEL), argued that the respondents were deceptively using 'GOYAL GLOBAL' in the steel goods market to capitalize on its goodwill. While directing the Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously, the High Court maintained an interim restraint order preventing the named respondents from using the disputed marks until the final judgment.
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
Zuventus Healthcare Limited v.Zaventis Health Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Zuventus Healthcare Limited against Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ZAVENTIS HEALTH CARE,' was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZUVENTUS,' leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This order allows the suit to proceed while restraining the defendant from using any deceptively similar branding in relation to pharmaceutical products.
M/S Jay Plastic Company & Ors. v.M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trade dress and trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Jay Plastic Company against M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for an immediate local commission, allowing a Local Commissioner to search the defendants' premises and seize goods bearing deceptively similar packaging and marks (SPARROW vs ARROW). This decisive step allows the plaintiffs to gather crucial evidence of infringement and unfair competition while the main suit proceeds.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd v.M/S Triad Shoes
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd, which is pursuing a suit against M/S Triad Shoes for trademark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from advance service requirements. Crucially, the court passed an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction, authorizing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged infringing goods.
Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited v.Arvind Fashions Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited against the trademark registration of 'NNNOW'. The dispute centered on removing specific descriptions of services from the impugned registration. Crucially, both parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo before the court. Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.
Castrol Limited v.Kapil & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction to Castrol Limited in its suit against Kapil & Anr., allowing the plaintiff to proceed with an ex-parte local commission. The court recognized that the defendants were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit engine oils, infringing on Castrol's trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights related to their packaging. This order permits a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence of infringement.
V.Sundaresan & Ors. v.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.
The Madras High Court addressed multiple appeals and petitions concerning a trademark infringement dispute over the 'Varalakshmi' brand name used for sago/sabudana products. Recognizing the overlap between the appellate issues and the main suit, the Court directed the Commercial Court to expedite the original trademark suit within 16 weeks. Crucially, while vacating previous stays on proceedings, the High Court ensured that the existing interim order from the lower court would remain in effect until the final judgment of the main suit.
M/s.Babu Ram Om Prakash v.A.Manickavel
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition concerning the rectification of Trade Mark No. 502558 after both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The petition, which had been transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, was settled amicably between M/s. Babu Ram Om Prakash and A. Manickavel. This resolution allows the matter to be closed without further judicial intervention.
M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons, issuing a Writ of Mandamus against The Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought direction to accept an old renewal request (dated 27.03.2013) for their trademark due to alleged inaction by the Registry. The Court found that the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, was not provided to the proprietor. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to accept the renewal request and allow further renewals.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited against Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr. following a successful out-of-court settlement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC'. The court formalized the agreement, which required the defendant to cease the wrongful use and surrender its GST registration obtained under the disputed trade name.
Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S B.R. Industries
The Meghalaya High Court admitted the appeal filed by Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order concerning alleged trademark infringement and costs. The appellant primarily sought reconsideration regarding the quantum of costs imposed. The court allowed the matter to proceed for further hearing, provided the appellant deposits Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within one week.
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited v.Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court judgment in India Cements Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. (though the parties listed are Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.) resulted in the dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, chose to withdraw the case on June 27, 2024, before a final judgment could be delivered. This action effectively ended the litigation regarding the use of the deceptively similar mark 'NOIDA SUPER KINGS' against the defendant.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
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.