India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 71 · 2,115 total
Chitali Bottling Limited v.Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chitali Bottling Limited seeking a temporary injunction against Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around the right to use specific country liquor brand names and labels. The court found that the Appellant's claim of an 'oral license' was a sham plea, especially given the existence of a written License Agreement from 2014. Furthermore, the court ruled that under the Trade Marks Act, perpetual oral assignment is not legally possible, concluding that the Appellant had no prima facie case.
Kiran Jain & Ors. v.Kangaro Industries (Regd.) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a long-standing dispute between two families regarding the use of the 'KANGARO' trademark for stationery products. Despite the Plaintiffs seeking permanent injunctions against foreign litigation, the Court recognized the complex history and the familial nature of the conflict. Consequently, the court mandated mediation while issuing interim directions allowing both parties to continue their respective trademark applications and statutory proceedings globally, provided they notify the opposing party if new civil or criminal actions are initiated.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited against Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr. The court found that the defendants' use of marks was a slavish imitation of Ambuja's registered trademarks 'AMBUJA' and 'VIRAT'. Given the likelihood of customer confusion in the common building materials trade, the injunction prevents the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or devices related to cement and allied goods.
Tube Investments Of India Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Enterprises & Ors.
Tube Investments Of India Limited successfully moved the Delhi High Court to protect its 'DIAMOND' trademark against widespread counterfeiting in the automotive parts market. The court recognized the extensive goodwill associated with the mark and the clear evidence of infringement presented by the plaintiff, including discrepancies found via QR codes and packaging differences. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct seizures and verification across various premises.
One Moto Scooters Trading Llc v.Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider (CSG ICP)
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of One Moto Scooters Trading Llc, restraining Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider from using the trademark 'ONE MOTO' or any deceptively similar mark. This protective order was granted to prevent imminent threat of unauthorized use, including manufacturing automotive products. Furthermore, the court directed that the domain name 'www.one-moto.in' remain blocked, maintaining the status quo until further proceedings.
Capital One Financial Corporation v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital One Financial Corporation against Ashok Kumar & Anr. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were unauthorizedly using marks and domain names deceptively similar to 'CAPITAL ONE' to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with the major US bank. Consequently, the court restrained the parties from using these infringing marks and directed Google LLC to block the associated email address.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v.Akash Chaudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.
Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd v.Nava Healthcare P Ltd
The Delhi High Court formally recorded an amicable settlement between Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd and Nava Healthcare P Ltd regarding trademark infringement. The Defendant, Nava Healthcare, acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in 'KHANDELWAL' and 'KLAB' logos used for pharmaceutical products. As part of the settlement, the Defendant agreed to a permanent injunction, ceased using the marks, committed to disposing of existing stock by specific deadlines, and agreed to pay outstanding liabilities totaling over Rs 1.51 crores.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S. K.K.Garments, Through Its Owner
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. K.K.Garments, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed multiple Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK trademarks, and demand disclosure of financial records, significantly bolstering the plaintiff's ability to enforce its rights.
Patanjali Aryurved Limited v.Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'PATANJALI' brand, specifically 'PATANJALI COW'S GHEE'. While the Plaintiff sought strict enforcement against alleged counterfeiters, the court opted for an amicable resolution approach. The parties, including Defendant No.1 (Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited) and Defendant No.3, were referred to the Mediation Centre. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief allowing Defendant No.1 to exhaust its existing genuine stock while seeking a structured path toward resolving the dispute.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Www.Hindustantimes.Tech & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted permission to HT Media Limited to proceed against the infringing domain name www.hindustantimes.tech in a suit covering copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court found that the impugned website was deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' established brand 'Hindustan Times' and was reproducing their copyrighted content. Crucially, the judgment provided a strong enforcement mechanism by directing the communication of the order to ICANN, leveraging Registrar Accreditation Agreement clauses to ensure compliance from domain registrars.
Sunit Shah v.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sunit Shah against Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the similarity between the plaintiff's mark ('SHAH/SHAH NAMKEEN') and the defendant's mark ('SHAH JI NAMKEEN'), applied to identical goods (namkeen), created a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing mark until further hearing, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize and inventory the disputed goods.
M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited against Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, leading to the restraint on the defendants from using the 'JK Smart' mark for wall putty and related products. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods and inspect the defendant's accounts, reinforcing the immediate protective measures available in IP litigation.
Semco Infratech Pvt Ltd v.Simla Chemicals Pvt Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a trademark dispute between Simla Chemicals (owner of SIMCO) and Semco Infratech (using SEMCO). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to decree the original suit in terms of this agreement. Under the settlement, Simla retains ownership of 'SIMCO' but is permitted to expand its product range, while Semco can continue using 'SEMCO' for specific goods and services, provided they pursue necessary registrations. The ruling provides a clear path forward for both parties to operate without ongoing litigation.
Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Sandisk Llc v.Jpy Mobile Phone Accessories & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court addressed persistent violations by JPY Mobile Phone Accessories despite an existing interim injunction. The court found that the defendants continued to sell counterfeit 'SanDisk' products, even after large stocks were seized and returned on superdari. Consequently, the court issued bailable warrants against the promoters of the defendant and directed the police to take custody of all previously inventoried infringing goods for the plaintiff's safe keeping.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Sujay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL). The court condoned a delay in filing an amended plaint and allowed Defendant No.1 to participate fully in the proceedings, recalling an earlier ex-parte order. Crucially, the court reiterated previous directions requiring social media platforms like Meta and Google to take down content featuring AMUL's brand or mascot that targets the company in the context of animal cruelty within 36 hours of notification.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors.
Havells India Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement dispute against Vickey Trading As M/S Fash Wagon & Ors. through a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use of the infringing mark 'HAVEL' and similar variants, take down online listings, destroy counterfeit materials, and pay damages to Havells. This judgment formally decrees the terms of this amicable resolution.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
Kuvam Gujral v.Ashim Gujral & Ors
This appeal challenges a single judge's order that restrained the appellant from using the trademark 'Moti Mahal'. The core dispute revolves around the devolution of proprietary rights in the unregistered trademark following the death of its original applicant. The appellant argues that since the trademark was inherited by multiple branches through intestate succession, all descendants should have the right to use it, preventing exclusion.
T K D Keerthi, Sole Proprietress, M/S Lifeimpressions v.Yamini Manohar
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by T K D Keerthi against the Commercial Court's decision regarding an interim injunction. While the appellant initially accepted waiting for a final decision, the core grievance centered on the lower court prematurely deciding material issues related to trademark abandonment. The Court subsequently issued notice to the respondent, allowing the litigation to proceed and address these specific concerns.
Unilever Plc. v.Aman Chauhan
In this interim application concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Unilever Plc. sought a short adjournment to continue identifying the true parties involved in the counterfeiting operation. The court noted that amendments had been made to implead the party found at the premises during the execution of an earlier ad-interim order. Given that Unilever was still actively tracing the ultimate owner of the infringing premises, the High Court granted the request for adjournment until May 4, 2022, ensuring the existing protective orders remained in force.
M/S M K Enterprises v.M/S Jems Engineering
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M K Enterprises against an interim injunction favoring M/S Jems Engineering. The dispute centered on trademark infringement and passing off concerning submersible pumps, where both parties used similar marks (JAMES vs. JEMS). The court found that the respondent-plaintiff successfully established prima facie evidence of prior use dating back to 2004, outweighing the appellant's claims of later registration and business commencement in 2013. Consequently, the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, upholding the injunction.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Kori Brush Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Satnam Brush Industry, decreeing the suit against Kori Brush Industries for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant deliberately imitated the plaintiff's complete range of products, trade dress, packaging, and product codes, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from further misuse and ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Defendants sought to return the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Mumbai while the Defendant operated only one restaurant in Patna. The Delhi High Court rejected the immediate request for return of the plaint, noting the Plaintiff's successful history of obtaining injunctions across various jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained by the Defendant until further orders, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal & Ors. v.Dr Suraj Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two connected suits, one concerning the infringement of the registered trademark 'SPECTRA EYE' and the other dealing with immovable property partition. The court noted that the trademark issue was complex and had been extensively heard by another bench. Consequently, the matter was listed for further adjudication before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on May 11, 2022.
Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Pb Fintech Pvt Ltd's application to implead additional defendants (No. 18 to 22) in its trademark infringement suit against Policy Bazar Finance & Ors. Crucially, the court modified existing interim injunction orders to extend protection against these newly added parties. The order reinforces the plaintiff's rights by restraining all named parties from using deceptively similar marks and mandates domain registrars and ISPs to block access to infringing websites.
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.