India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 125 · 3,740 total
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 Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.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.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Ashish Anilkumar Desai (M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries) v.M/S.Maas Herbals Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai against M/S. Maas Herbals Private Limited. The petition sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'LICYL' from the register, citing issues with Registration No.2089321. Crucially, the court noted that despite multiple opportunities and service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear for hearing. Consequently, the case was dismissed purely on grounds of non-prosecution.
Skoda Auto A.S. v.M.R.Sanjeevi
Skoda Auto A.S. filed a suit against M.R. Sanjeevi and others, alleging infringement and passing off concerning its well-known trade mark 'SKODA' and its logo. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of similar marks. However, on the date of hearing (June 11, 2024), the court noted that the plaintiff had failed to file the required proof affidavit for chief examination as directed by the Court. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for default.
M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons v.Vemula Manikyam
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons against Vemula Manikyam and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner sought the removal or cancellation of the trademark 'KISMAT BEEDI' from the register, citing concerns over maintaining the purity of the register. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear for hearing despite being duly served notice, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
M/S. Chandras Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors
The Calcutta High Court issued a directive in the matter concerning the registration of the mark "DENSEAL (Gom.Dev)". Noting that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed to transmit the original case record despite previous court directions, the Court granted a final opportunity. The Registrar was ordered to submit the complete record by August 19, 2024, with a warning that failure to comply would result in mandatory appearance before the Court on August 27, 2024.
Prabhu Soap Works v.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Ashim Gujral v.Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Private Limited & Anr.
Ashim Gujral has initiated legal action against Moti Mahal Delux Management Services regarding the registration of the trademark 'MOTI MAHAL GROUP'. The petitioner asserts co-ownership of the 'MOTI MAHAL' mark and claims that Respondent No. 1 obtained the impugned registration by making false statements, relying on the petitioner's rights without consent. The court has issued notice to both parties, setting the stage for formal opposition proceedings.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v.Mr. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of an allegedly infringing trademark, 'RAPIDO' (No. 4459206), registered in Class 39. The Delhi High Court proceeded with issuing notice to all permissible parties, setting the matter for return on September 24, 2024. While procedural applications regarding document filing were addressed, the core dispute over trademark cancellation is now moving forward.
GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. v.Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court order that granted an injunction to Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. The dispute centered on the use of specific alphanumeric codes (e.g., '786', '2048M') in chemical products. The court found prima facie evidence that GTZ copied these unique alpha numerals, which are used by Artek as source identifiers for their goods, thereby establishing a case of both trademark infringement and passing off.
Ranjit Prasad Mathuri v.Gopal Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Ranjit Prasad Mathuri, against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning his 'GS GULAB BIDI 755' mark. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing or dealing in bidis using marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark, pending further proceedings.
Malhotra Surgical Industries v.Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued interim directions concerning the online sale of 'MICROTONE' products. While the defendant undertook not to sell or distribute the impugned goods, the plaintiff noted that the products remained available on various e-commerce platforms. Consequently, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits—the plaintiff detailing current infringing listings and the defendants naming all distributors—to allow for further appropriate judicial action.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Jrpl Riceland LLP against Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's subsequent adoption of a deceptively similar trademark ('2') for rice constituted passing off, given the Plaintiff's established goodwill and senior user status with their mark ('9090'). This interim relief prevents the defendant from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.Superior Industries Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Radico Khaitan Ltd against Superior Industries Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GREAT GRAND MASTI' for alcoholic beverages was highly likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff's established mark, 'MASTIH'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned marks until the final hearing.
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.