India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 71 · 2,115 total
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Premier Nutritions Privat Limited v.Amit Product A Proprietary Connern
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Premier Nutritions Privat Limited against Amit Product A Proprietary Connern, finding that the defendant's use of 'DOODH MANTHAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MANTHAN/PREMIER MANTHAN'. Furthermore, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and seize infringing products, reinforcing the immediate protection available to IP holders facing market imitation.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
Guillermo Horacio Pino v.Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Guillermo Horacio Pino against Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Plaintiff, who owns significant goodwill associated with the children's content brand 'PLIM PLIM,' successfully argued that the Defendants were using an identical mark for baby diaper products. The Court found a prima facie case, noting the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation due to consumer confusion.
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Eureka Forbes Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning a trademark dispute between Eureka Forbes and NIXI/related parties. The court allowed defendants to resume use of the domain name www.rocareindia.com, lifting an earlier ex-parte injunction that had blocked it. However, this relief was conditional: the defendants must strictly adhere to existing restrictions prohibiting them from using or representing themselves as connected with Eureka Forbes' trademarks like 'Aquaguard' and 'Forbes'.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Essencia Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Essencia Beverages Private Limited. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademarks ('Officer's Choice') and copyrighted trade dress by using a deceptively similar label for 'True Blu Reserve Whisky'. Citing the established reputation and well-known status of the Plaintiff's brand, the Court found a prima facie case existed, leading to the immediate restraint on the Defendants' activities until further hearing.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v.M/S Darzi On Call
The Delhi High Court proceeded with the trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Mittal & Anr. against M/S Darzi On Call. The court framed five key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DARZI ON CALL' constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the term 'DARZI' is distinctive to the plaintiffs. This order sets the stage for the trial by directing both parties to file their lists of witnesses and affidavits within specified timelines.
Ved Prakash Soni v.Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between Ved Prakash Soni and Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed an exemption application while simultaneously issuing notice to the respondents regarding the main suit. Both parties were directed to exchange necessary documentation, with a timeline set for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the substantive litigation is proceeding.
Great White Global Private Limited v.S. S. Cable Mfg. Co.
In this trademark dispute, Great White Global Private Limited sought resolution against S.S. Cable Mfg. Co. The court noted that the defendants had communicated their intent to settle amicably and provided an undertaking not to use the disputed marks (SS GRAND WHITE or GRAND WHITE) in the future. Consequently, the matter was directed towards a formal settlement hearing, indicating a potential amicable resolution of the trademark conflict.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute between two brothers regarding the exclusive rights to the trademark 'Superon' following a Family Settlement concerning their company. The court formalized an agreement where Sharad Mehra conceded the right to use 'Superon' in the domestic market, while Sanjay Mehra gained exclusivity for that territory. To facilitate this transition, the court directed parties to seek expedited approvals from Metrology and GST authorities regarding packaging changes.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Mr X Trading As Messrs Amar Medical Store & Ors.
Boehringer Ingelheim International sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a suit concerning its pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff asserted rights over its trademarks and distinctive trade dress, which it claimed constituted original artistic works under the Copyright Act. While the court allowed the application for interim relief, it mandated that notice be issued to the Defendants before execution of the order, setting the stage for further litigation regarding brand protection.
U.S. Green Building Council v.Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) against Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation due to the Defendant's use of identical names ('International Green Building Council') and logos, as well as verbatim copying of the Plaintiff's website content. Given that the Plaintiff demonstrated significant goodwill in India through its certifications and reputation, the Court found a prima facie case for infringement. Consequently, the Defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing marks and providing further certifications under those names.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Akash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v.M/S. Servomax Precious Electronics
The Telangana High Court set aside a lower court's dismissal of an application for interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving the 'Servomax' brand. The appellant, claiming ownership based on an assignment deed from 1998, argued that the respondent's subsequent registration was obtained through fraud and concealment of prior rights. Given the ongoing injunction and the merits of the claim regarding fraudulent acquisition, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit while maintaining the interim protection for the appellant.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd v.Ch V Pulla Rao
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed a petition alleging that Ch V Pulla Rao was willfully disobeying a settlement agreement by using the deceptively similar trademark "A VITA Z" against Alkem's mark, "A to Z". The petitioner presented photographic evidence of the alleged infringement. The respondent denied the allegations and stated they were not using the infringing mark. The court noted that the respondent's counter affidavit was missing and listed the matter for further hearing.
Komal Meena v.Mayank Pareek
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a lower court's order that had rejected an application for a temporary injunction. The core issue was whether the lack of a registered trademark barred the plaintiff from seeking relief in a passing off suit. The High Court clarified that while registration provides exclusive rights, Section 27(2) allows suits for passing off even if the mark is unregistered. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the injunction application based on the correct legal principles.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. And Ors. v.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected a motion filed by Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that since the Plaintiffs alleged they have physical stores and their licensees' websites target consumers in Delhi, a valid cause of action exists within the territorial limits of India. This ruling allows the core litigation regarding the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks to move forward.
Zydus Wellness Products Limited v.M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction in favor of Zydus Wellness Products Limited against M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr. The court found that the defendant's product was prima facie deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, despite arguments regarding ownership transfer and territorial jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established brands through both trademark law and passing off principles.
M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction in favor of M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. against Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors., finding that the defendant's mark 'SEABIRD' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s established trademark 'STEELBIRD'. The court emphasized the importance of common law rights derived from long, continuous use, ruling that registration alone does not supersede prior proprietary rights. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against potential dilution and confusion in the market.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd v.Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a settlement between Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd and Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited regarding trademark disputes over the FAST&UP brand family. The parties agreed that Plumax acknowledged the validity and rights of Aeronutrlx in sub-brands like CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD, and VITALIZE, including associated trade dress. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Plumax committed to withdrawing opposition filings and ceasing all use of similar marks or designs.
Sanjay Soya Private Limited v.Lokeshwari Traders And Anr.
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 362 of 2022 after confirming that all undertakings stipulated in the parties' Consent Terms had been duly complied with. The defendants confirmed they had applied to withdraw their trademark application and declared non-use of the mark, while also providing evidence that the impugned products had been destroyed. This order formally concluded the litigation based on mutual agreement.
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.