India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 71 · 2,115 total
Apple Hair And Beauty Services Private Ltd. v.Kavita Ankush Borude
This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenges a trial court order that restrained Apple Hair and Beauty Services from using the trade mark 'Apple Unisex Salon.' The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the suit should have been filed in the Commercial Court due to its valuation and nature (trade mark infringement/passing off). The court granted time for the respondent-plaintiff to address this issue before proceeding with the appeal.
Kajaria Ceramics Limited & Ors. v.Mr Suresh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark matters, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues raised by the defendants. Despite initial difficulties in compliance with court orders, the Court allowed the written statement to be filed after imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000. The Court also directed that Defendant No. 1 would participate virtually due to health reasons and set future dates for the proceedings.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Infiniti Retail Limited successfully sought judicial intervention against an infringing website, www.cromawholesellersltd.co.in, which was identified as using its registered trademarks and logo. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead the website owner as a defendant and extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim injunction to cover this new party. Crucially, the court directed the suspension of the infringing domain name and mandated that the responsible parties provide detailed registrant information, reinforcing strong protection for well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Godrej Properties Ltd. v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed the delay in deactivating infringing domain names. The court emphasized that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy must process valid requests from the plaintiff, especially when they relate to misuse of a protected mark. To resolve the dispute, the court directed GoDaddy to file an affidavit explaining why certain domains remain active and providing full details of the domain registrants.
M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Shri Rhythm Agarwal. The core dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, not Chennai. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the lower court's decision, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the appellant had sufficient grounds under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to file the suit in its jurisdiction.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
Hebei Hailan Bearing Manufacture Co. Ltd. v.M/S Pearl Bearing Co.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the Plaintiff seeking disclosure of financial and import documents from the Defendant. While the Defendant argued that some information was confidential, the Court issued a conditional order. The Defendant must now file an affidavit detailing complete sale figures and submit all requested documents in a sealed cover for judicial review before they can be released to the Plaintiff.
Appy Pie Llp v.Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.
In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
M/s.Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh v.Mr.N.Balaji
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh, granting a substantial judgment for the recovery of dues and permanent injunctive relief. The suit involved claims related to goods supplied and investments made towards a joint venture that failed to materialize. Crucially, the court also recognized the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, ordering all defendants to cease any infringement of the 'Langro' trade name and associated logo. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes, combining commercial debt recovery with protection of intellectual property assets.
Yonex Co., Ltd v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd against unauthorized use of its trademark 'YONEX'. The court found sufficient grounds for restraining infringement related to the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com', ordering the domain registrar, NameSilo LLC, to block the site and maintain status quo until further orders.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Eris Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Eris Health Care regarding the alleged misuse of 'GEMCAL' and 'GEMCAL PLUS' trademarks and associated packaging. The court observed that the defendants agreed to change their marks from 'DE-CAL GEM' to 'DECAL PLUS' (and similar changes for 'PLUS'). After reviewing the proposed new artwork, the court allowed the adoption of the revised designs while permanently restraining the defendants from using any mark or packaging deceptively similar to Alkem’s original trademarks and presentation.
M/S. Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. v.The Addl. Cit, Range-5, Ahmedabad
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of trade mark expenditure. The assessee also filed a cross-objection concerning the calculation of depreciation on machinery. The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, addressing issues related to intangible asset deduction and depreciation.
S.Maheswari v.The Union of India
This writ petition challenged a summons issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding statements made in a daily newspaper concerning the rejection of her trademark registration. The petitioner had previously appealed this rejection to the IPAB, which remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Madras High Court ultimately quashed the impugned summons, holding that statutory authorities are creatures under law and cannot conduct inquiries or issue summons based merely on news reports published in a newspaper.
Voltas Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction in favor of Voltas Limited against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court found that the defendants were infringing on Voltas' registered and well-known trademarks (VOLTAS and its logo) by operating a deceptive website, www.myvoltascare.com. Given the prima facie case established by Voltas regarding extensive goodwill and reputation, the court ordered immediate measures including restraining trademark use, blocking the domain name, disabling the website, freezing bank accounts, and suspending UPI IDs to prevent irreparable harm.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Sehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
M/s. Varkey Overseas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v.Official Liquidator Of Sumeet Machines ...
The Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim order in a company petition dispute involving the liquidation assets of Sumeet Machines. The court found that certain agreements produced late by one party lacked credibility, leading it to grant relief to the Official Liquidator. The ruling mandates that Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. must provide a full Affidavit of Disclosure detailing how they have used the trademarks and copyrights associated with the company's artistic works, along with all related income and actions taken.
Netsweeper Inc. v.Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited & Others
Netsweeper Inc. filed a suit against several entities for passing off its corporate name 'NETSWEEPER' and infringing on its trademark rights. The plaintiff sought damages, permanent injunctions, and an accounting of profits derived from the deceptive use of the brand. While the court addressed multiple claims including licensing fees and tax debts owed to the government, the judgment primarily focused on restraining the defendants from using or dealing with the 'NETSWEEPER' name in a manner that suggests affiliation with the plaintiff.
M/S.Godaddy.Com Llc v.M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute over domain name infringement brought by M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited against Godaddy.com LLC and its Indian subsidiary. While the court acknowledged the Plaintiff's trademark rights, it significantly curtailed the scope of the suit. The mandatory injunction seeking removal of infringing trademarks was rejected due to lack of necessary parties, but the Plaintiff was allowed to proceed regarding alleged liability arising from the Defendants' use of domain suggestion tools.
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.