India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 71 · 2,115 total
Electronica Semiconductors Pvst Ltd v.Naveen Goel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark opposition proceedings involving Electronica Semiconductors Pvt Ltd against Naveen Goel and others. The court directed the parties to cure registry objections, provide necessary documentation, and file consolidated briefs of submissions within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for further substantive arguments regarding the trademark dispute.
Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International v.Qaysa Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff, Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International, against Qaysa Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'NEW IMPROVED HAMMER OF THOR' was virtually identical to the plaintiff's registered marks and trade dress, constituting prima facie passing off and trademark infringement. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff's brand while the main suit proceeds.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court remanded an appeal filed by Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd regarding the rejection of its trademark application 'Modern Namkeen Karare Lal'. The core issue was whether the appellant could proceed with the appeal despite a previous rejection order from 2018. Recognizing the merits of the case, the court ordered the matter to be sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the original review application. However, this remand is conditional: Modern Snacks must first prove that the prior rejection order was never properly communicated to them.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Jaya Sai Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/s.Jaya Sai Traders for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'DHEEPAM' and copyright violation related to the packaging of lamp oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('PANCHA DEEPAM OIL') and trade dress, leading to passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the IP infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
M/S Jindal (India) Limited v.M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles Through Its Partners Rakesh Gandhi and Vinay Gandhi
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Jindal (India) Limited against M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks, such as 'JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM' and 'JINDAL RANGOLI,' on roofing sheets, which infringed upon Jindal's registered trademarks like 'JINDAL SABRANG.' Recognizing a prima facie case and irreparable harm to Jindal's reputation, the court immediately restrained the defendant from selling or advertising goods using these infringing marks.
Ajinomoto Co Inc v.Dattatrey Studios & Anr.
Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.
Siddhant Icecreams Llp v.Ameet Pahilani
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court facilitated an agreement between Siddhant Icecreams LLP (Plaintiffs) and Ameet Pahilani (Defendant No. 2). The court mandated that Defendant No. 2 cease using the terms 'Natural' and 'Naturals' in relation to ice creams across various media, including packaging and online platforms, to protect the Plaintiffs' trademark rights. However, the order provided specific carve-outs allowing the use of the mark 'NIC' under certain conditions within India and outside India, while also permitting the sale of existing stock until a specified date.
Apollo Tyres Limited v.Glory Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.
Apnatime Tech Private Limited And Anr. v.Anik Dev Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Apnatime Tech Private Limited against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were passing off their services using a deceptively similar mark ('APNA JOBS') and infringing on their copyrighted website layout and user interface. Citing prima facie evidence, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark and artistic works, while also directing domain name suspension and blocking to prevent further consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Lakme Lever Private Limited v.Shyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.
This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.
Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd v.Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd against Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from continuing to use the 'Best Western' sub-licensed mark even after the underlying Sub-License Agreement was terminated due to defaults by the respondent. The court found that the continued unauthorized use of the mark, despite termination and legal notice, was likely to cause irreparable damage and mislead the public regarding an ongoing relationship between the parties.
Kurlon Enterprises Ltd. v.M/S Goel Foam Co.
The plaintiff, Kurlon Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, M/S Goel Foam Co., was misguiding customers by displaying the plaintiff's glow sign board and selling products under its name without authorization. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved through documentary evidence that the defendant was infringing upon their trade mark and business reputation.
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.S.Sura & Ors
The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed verdict in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo. While the court found that Defendants 6 and 7 were infringing the 'VOLVO' mark through deceptive similarity and dilution, leading to permanent injunctions and costs being awarded to Volvo, it ultimately dismissed the suit against other defendants (4, 5, and 9). The judgment highlights the critical importance of evidence regarding trademark usage and ownership in determining liability.
Vintage Distillers Limited v.Ramesh Chand Parekh
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Vintage Distillers Limited against Ramesh Chand Parekh regarding their alcoholic beverage brands. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'DHOLA THARU' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DHOLA MAARU'. Furthermore, the court recognized infringement not only under trademark law but also under copyright law due to the slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's artistic label design and trade dress. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds.
M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr. v.M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Cipla Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.
M/S Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Lotus Organic Care
M/S Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of detergents, filed an appeal seeking to overturn the rejection of its application for a temporary injunction against M/S Lotus Organic Care. The appellant claimed that the respondent was infringing upon its registered trade mark 'Decide' and associated copyrights with its product 'Delite'. Despite arguments regarding prima facie infringement, the High Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's decision to deny the injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to expedite the final disposal of the original suit.
MC-monitoring SA v.Pro Tech Monitoring Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in developing predictive health monitoring solutions for rotating machines, sued the defendant for illegal use, passing off, dilution, and copyright infringement of its name/mark MC-monitoring. The plaintiff argued that the mark had acquired international recognition and goodwill. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
This case involved a civil suit filed by M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright through the use of the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. However, both parties reached a mutual settlement agreement.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright in the associated artistic work and trade dress used on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' and passing off inferior products. Both parties subsequently reached a settlement, leading the Madras High Court to dispose of the captioned suit based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
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.