India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 125 · 3,740 total
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Oswaal Books appealed a refusal order by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for registration of the mark 'ONE FOR ALL' in Class 16. The lower court held that the phrase was common and descriptive, lacking inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The High Court overturned this decision, finding that the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive and capable of registration.
Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Gloster Limited (SRA) v.Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed a complex dispute regarding the ownership and status of the trademark 'Gloster' within the context of insolvency proceedings (IBC). The core issue was whether the trademark, which had been assigned to Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), remained an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Court ultimately set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the trademark belonged to the Corporate Debtor, but clarified that this ruling did not definitively resolve the underlying title dispute between the parties. This judgment highlights the limitations of insolvency forums in adjudicating complex intellectual property ownership claims.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks that dismissed his opposition against the registration of the mark 'JBR'. The dispute centered on whether 'JBR' was likely to cause confusion with Karan Rathore's pre-existing device mark used for motor parts and automotive accessories. The court allowed the appeal, finding that both marks were identical and the goods were similar enough to warrant refusal.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre
This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
Kapil Goyal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Kapil Goyal appealed the refusal by The Registrar of Trade Marks to register the mark 'DOUBLE-CHOICE' under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The initial rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and descriptive. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reasoning for deeming the mark descriptive was unfounded, especially since the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its subject trade mark, 'PETKIND', citing similarity to a prior application. The Appellant argued that their extensive use and established goodwill with marks containing 'KIND' should qualify them for higher protection. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Anrose Pharma
The suit was filed alleging infringement and passing off concerning the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of 'ZEROVOL-P' was deceptively similar, confusingly misleading, and aimed at capitalizing on the Plaintiff's goodwill in medicinal preparations. Given the Defendant failed to contest the suit despite being served, the Court decreed the suit.
Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v.Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that struck off the registered BLUE-JAY trade mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court examined whether the removal was justified based on grounds like bad faith and prior user status.
Ravi Chauhan v.Pankaj Chauhan
The plaintiff, a registered patent and trademark agent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- against the defendant. The dispute arose because the defendant failed to pay the agreed fees for filing a counter-statement in opposition to the trademark 'FULEZ'. Since the defendant remained absent despite service and was proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
Mandeep Singh v.Shabir Momin & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to the rectification and cancellation of trademarks associated with 'Instant Bollywood.' While the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material documents indicating prior knowledge of the trademark registrations, it chose not to dismiss the interim injunction application. Instead, the court entertained the injunction but imposed a significant cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner for the non-disclosure.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. v.Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. appealed against an order that dismissed its application for interim injunction, alleging that the respondents were infringing on its trademarks and engaging in passing off. The appellant claimed to be a long-standing user of the 'DINDAYAL' mark since 1927, possessing substantial goodwill and numerous registered trademarks. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, concluding that refusing interim relief would cause irreparable injury to its reputation.
Somany Ceramics Limited v.Hsil Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by Somany Ceramics Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific registered device mark, 'A Somany Enterprise,' belonging to Hsil Limited. The core ground for the relief was non-use, as the applicant successfully argued that the respondent had never commercially used the impugned mark in relation to the goods specified under Class 16. Given the respondents' concession regarding the lack of commercial use, the court directed the removal of the mark from the Trade Marks Register.
Novartis Ag v.Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.Krishna Alias Tinku & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Government Emarketplace v.Ankit Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction in favor of Government Emarketplace (GeM), a non-profit public procurement platform. The court directed domain registrar Godaddy.com to suspend specific infringing domain names and required social media intermediary Amazon to remove links hosting unauthorized webpages. This decisive order protects the GeM trademark against online infringement, setting a strong precedent for digital rights enforcement in India.
M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation v.Goramal Hari Ram Limited
The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul v.Sunder Lal Goyal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited (Sr) v.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification, expunging a trademark registration held by Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. The petitioner, Bennett Coleman And Company Limited, successfully argued that the registered mark had never been genuinely used since its inception in 2007. Relying on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court found that the continued presence of the unused mark constituted a wrongful and erroneous entry, thereby favoring the petitioner's claim to prior rights.
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.