India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 71 · 2,115 total
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II v.M/s. Future Brands Ltd
The Commissioner of Service Tax appealed against an order that dropped show cause notices alleging non-payment of service tax on the 'right to use' component of a Trademark License Agreement for the brand 'Ajile'. The Tribunal examined whether the exclusive nature of the license qualified as a 'deemed sale' under constitutional provisions. It ultimately held that since the license was exclusive, it fell within the meaning of 'transfer of right to use,' and thus service tax could not be levied.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Vatave Health Care And Anr.
The Bombay High Court extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim orders in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Vatave Health Care. The court noted that despite being served, Defendants 1 and 2 continued to remain absent from the proceedings. Consequently, the interim relief granted for trademark infringement and passing off was maintained until further orders, allowing the Plaintiff time to proceed with their case.
Kent Ro Systems Limited v.Kent Cables Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Kent Ro Systems Limited to seek exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of their trademark infringement and passing off claims against Kent Cables Private Limited. The court noted that Kent's 'KENT' mark is a registered and well-known trademark in relation to water purifiers. Consequently, the plaint was formally registered as a suit, and the matter proceeded toward filing written statements and considering an interim injunction.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where the Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Respondent. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the Defendant's impugned goods, which was central to the initial injunction granted by the lower court. The Bombay High Court upheld the previous orders, finding no infirmity in the single judges' discretion regarding the interlocutory applications.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd alleged copyright infringement and passing off against Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin and Anr. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the Defendant's allegedly infringing goods earlier than they claimed in their plaint. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiffs were misled or delayed in seeking relief.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the use of an artistic design on a medicinal oil, 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil.' The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and passing off against the defendant. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's similar artwork constituted blatant copying and if the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge to pursue legal action promptly. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the defendant did not infringe upon the plaintiffs' rights.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction in a suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendants, former employees, had gained access to proprietary technical know-how and confidential business information regarding prenatal supplements (TRIMACARE/LAYERCARE). Based on this prima facie case, the court authorized local commissioners to seize digital data, stock of infringing products ('NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE'), and relevant documents to prevent irreparable injury.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
Somesh Choudhary v.Knight Riders Sports Private Limited
The appellant, Somesh Choudhary (a shareholder), appealed an order admitting an application filed by Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd (the operational creditor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The core dispute was whether the non-payment of Minimum Guaranteed Royalties for using the KKR trademark on licensed products constituted an 'operational debt'.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Dabur India Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
In a significant ruling concerning domain name disputes, the Delhi High Court directed various Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to appoint Grievance Officers in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. This order was issued within the context of multiple connected suits involving trademark and cyber-related issues. The court emphasized the need for DNR compliance to protect intellectual property rights and ensure proper grievance redressal mechanisms are in place across the digital landscape.
akash aggarwal v.flipkart internet private limited
Akash Aggarwal, owner of the 'V Tradition' trademark for women's clothing, sued Flipkart alleging that the platform’s ‘latching on’ feature allowed third-party sellers to use his brand name and product images without consent, constituting passing off. The Plaintiff claimed significant sales and consumer engagement through Flipkart before this unauthorized usage.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Sanjeev Juneja & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar Bhatia
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit after making changes to their trademark, label, and packaging/trade dress. Despite the intention to withdraw, counsel requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts in another court. The Court granted the request, listing the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2022.
Mensa Brand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Kartik Fashion & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mensa Brand Technologies against Kartik Fashion & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized that the defendants were deceptively using the 'DENNIS LINGO' mark, along with similar trade dress features, to ride on the plaintiff's reputation in the e-commerce market. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods, and document their infringing activities.
Hachette Filipacchi Presse v.Aerolite Industries And 5 Ors
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 55 of 2010 after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The Consent Terms mandated that the defendants agree to use and register the trademark 'elle' in lowercase lettering while restricting its use in specific classes, and crucially, they committed not to adopt an identical or similar font to the plaintiff's registered mark 'ELLE'. This resolution provides clarity on brand usage rights through mutual agreement.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
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.