India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 71 · 2,115 total
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited v.M.P.Beer Products Private Limited
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against M.P.Beer Products Private Limited, seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for infringement of its registered trademarks, designs, and copyright related to beer bottles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was passing off their products as those of Mohan Breweries. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case effectively before the court, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit.
Consitex S.A. v.Sharad Rampal Jain And Sudeep Gautamchand Dhing Trading As Siesta Pharmaceuticals & 1 other(s)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Rectification Application (C/RA/50/2022) filed by Consitex S.A. The application sought action regarding a trademark, but the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the trademark in question had already been removed by the Registry. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
ITC Limited v.Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two separate applications in the dispute between ITC Limited and Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Regarding a request to use a new label, the court found that the proposed packaging did not appear deceptively similar to ITC's marks, thereby lifting the existing ad-interim injunction for this specific design. Separately, the Court initiated proceedings against Mr. Prem Chand Mittal for alleged assault and deliberate disobedience of previous orders.
M/S.Avon Emery Industries v.Sabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Anil Pendela
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.
Zippo Manufacturing Company v.Raja Bhai Traders & Anr
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Zippo Manufacturing Company, restraining Defendant No. 3 from manufacturing or selling counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and related goods bearing deceptively similar trademarks. Crucially, the court clarified that this order does not impede the defendant's sale of genuine products. Separately, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for alleged violation of previous orders, keeping the litigation active.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Vaibhav Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against Vaibhav Agro Industries for trademark infringement. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'AquaSure' on packaged drinking water was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. While the claim for copyright infringement failed due to lack of similarity in artistic works, the core trademark infringement suit was successfully decreed.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP v.TVC Life Sciences Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, granting a permanent injunction against TVC Life Sciences Ltd and others. The dispute centered on trademark infringement concerning Ayurvedic joint pain relief oils. The court found that the defendants' mark, 'SANDHEE SUDDHAM,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'SANDHI SUDHA.' This decision reinforces the importance of prior use and goodwill in protecting brand identity within the pharmaceutical sector.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.M/S Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by V-Guard Industries against an order that deemed its trademark opposition abandoned. The court held that the strict interpretation of 'leave with the Registrar' in the Trade Marks Rules should not lead to the evisceration of a citizen's valuable commercial right to oppose registration. Despite the evidence being received three days late, the High Court set aside the abandonment order and directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed with considering V-Guard's opposition.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
Adani Wilmar Limited v.Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex legal issue concerning the enforceability of trademark rights after a party voluntarily waives actionable claims related to that brand. The court specifically examined an affidavit where the defendant, Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., declared they forewent any enforceable right in their unregistered brand 'Shubh Labh Fortune' for GST exemption purposes. Given the implications on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court directed the Department of Revenue to file its stand and submissions in the current proceedings.
Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj v.Mr. Gagan Bhardwaj
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court issued a series of orders. The court granted an interim restraint on the defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products while allowing him to liquidate his existing stock within three months. Furthermore, the parties were mandated to undergo mediation, signaling that the dispute will proceed through structured negotiation before further litigation.
M/S Soktas Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret As v.ACIT, International Taxation
The assessee, a Turkish non-resident entity specializing in textile production, received consideration for granting an exclusive and perpetual license to use its trademarks and brand names to its Indian subsidiary. The core dispute was whether this payment constituted royalty or capital gains under the India-Turkey Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Abhinav Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr against Abhinav Singh & Ors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were operating a fraudulent website using the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and DS Group trademarks to lure the public into fake distributorship schemes, while also infringing on copyright by copying the label layout. The court found a prima facie case was made out, leading to immediate restraining orders against the use of the marks and domain name, along with directives to suspend the domain and freeze associated bank accounts.
Shree Ganesh Rollings Mills (India) Ltd. v.Jindal Rollings Milla Ltd.
In a significant procedural order, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to transfer two pending rectification applications filed by the respondents against the petitioner's trademarks. This move ensures that all related intellectual property proceedings are heard together in the High Court, aligning with established IP Division rules. The court set a timeline for the transmission and digitization of these records, paving the way for consolidated pleadings.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd v.Mohsin Dehlvi
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The court recognized that despite previous procedural hurdles, the pleadings raised valid questions concerning the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'DEHLVI' trademarks and the legal standing of an alleged Assignment Deed. Crucially, the judgment noted that under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, rectification petitions can now be clubbed with civil suits, eliminating the need for a stay on the main litigation.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Dipankar Mandal
Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.
Stanley Black And Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The Delhi High Court rejected a defendant's attempt to have the plaintiff's trademark infringement suit dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court affirmed that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated sufficient nexus to New Delhi, citing the defendant's sales across India, online transactions via websites like shoption.in and indiamart.com, and physical delivery within the city. This ruling reinforces the expansive interpretation of jurisdictional reach in modern commercial disputes involving digital commerce.
Artsana India Private Limited v.Vishanji Viijpar Savla
The plaintiff, Artsana India Private Limited, a subsidiary of Artsana SPA (Italy), claimed ownership of the well-known trademark "CHICCO" used for child care goods. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was fraudulently adopting and misusing this trademark to run his own business, causing dilution and loss. The court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and awarded costs.
Mr. Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ Kumar G.M v.M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged a lower court's dismissal of an intellectual property suit filed by M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court had jurisdiction, given that the suit related to trademarks and other assets but was valued low due to seeking only injunction. The High Court addressed this jurisdictional conflict, emphasizing that for commercial IP disputes, the 'Specified Value' under the Commercial Courts Act must be determined based on the market value of the intangible right, not merely the nature of the prayer.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Ashutosh Kumar Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp against Ashutosh Kumar Singh and others. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and associated copyrights, alleged that defendants were using a deceptive website ('www.rajnigandhadealership.online') to lure the public into fake distributorships under their brand name. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the trademarks or the domain name and directed the domain registrar and bank to take immediate action.
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.