India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 71 · 2,115 total
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.Akash S. Shah & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit filed by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. against Akash S. Shah & Anr., which sought permanent injunctions for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court incorporated into its decree. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on these terms, and the Plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire Court Fees.
M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another v.Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Drs Logistics against Google regarding trademark infringement via search engine advertising. The court recognized that using a registered trademark as a keyword could lead to consumer confusion, diverting traffic from the plaintiff's site to competitors. Consequently, the court granted interim injunctions requiring Google and other defendants to investigate any complaints of misuse and remove or block advertisements found to be infringing or causing passing off.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v.Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Ors. against Mr Grijesh Kumar Garg & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case regarding their well-known trademark 'AFZAL' used for tobacco products. Given the potential irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or selling any goods using deceptively similar marks like 'AFDHAAL' and 'ALAFDHAAL', pending further hearings.
Zydus Wellness Limited v.Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit previously decreed between Zydus Wellness Limited and Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited. Following an amicable resolution, both parties had deposited funds with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund. The court noted compliance regarding deposits and stock statements. Crucially, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the modification/alteration forms filed by Defendant No.1 concerning their registered marks.
Preeti / Kosmos Global v.Suresh R. Jain
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
Government E Marketplace v.Unilex Consultants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Government E Marketplace (GeM) against various parties for misusing its brand name. The plaintiff alleged that several defendants were registering or using 'GeM' as a domain name or URL extension, misleading the public into believing they were associated with the official portal. The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered the suspension of multiple infringing domains, reinforcing the protection of government digital brands against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Bajaj Finance Ltd & Anr. v.Niko Das & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bajaj Finance Ltd against Niko Das & Anr. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case demonstrating that the Defendants were fraudulently using identical or deceptively similar marks, such as 'BAJAJ' and 'BAJAJ FINANCE,' to offer financial services. This unauthorized use was deemed to constitute trademark infringement and passing off, causing potential confusion among the public.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
Savelife Foundation v.Mr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd. v.Mr. Rakesh Kumar And Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court provided a final opportunity for the Plaintiff, Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd., to formally include an assignee of the trademarks 'LALMAHAL' and 'SHRILALMAHAL' in the ongoing litigation. The court noted that the assignment occurred in 2018 and granted four weeks to file the necessary application. Failure to do so will result in the suit proceeding without the new party on record.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.M I Builders Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Private Limited against M I Builders Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the Plaintiff, who holds registered rights in 'CENTRAL PARK' for real estate, had made out a prima facie case. The Defendant was restrained from using the mark 'CENTRAL PARK' either standalone or combined with its group name 'M.I.' to prevent consumer confusion in the ongoing construction projects.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
M/S Rishabh Agencies v.P Kantilal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Rishabh Agencies against a trial court order that denied an interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'preethi' for household goods, claiming prior common law rights in 'preeti'. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that while the plaintiff claimed prior use, the defendant had been operating since 2004. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the defendant and that the core issues required a full trial.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
M/S Sureka Forbes (Pvt) Limited v.M/S Eureka Forbes Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sureka Forbes against M/S Eureka Forbes. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's acceptance of a Court Commissioner's report in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction concerning trademark and copyright infringement. The court ultimately found that accepting or rejecting the commissioner's report is a discretionary function of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Nisekind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Nisekind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Mankind, a major player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. The ruling specifically restrained the defendant from using the name 'NISEKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED' and any similar mark containing the word element KIND for medicinal preparations, citing potential consumer confusion and dilution of Mankind's well-known marks.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the use of the trademark 'SARKARI RESULT' and associated domain names. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter and user of the mark by comparing the actions of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The court has listed the matter for further hearing, indicating that the substantive determination of rights remains pending.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd v.Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an Appeal from Order in a trademark dispute between Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd and Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Due to mutual consensus between both parties, the court quashed the previous order passed by the trial court regarding Exh.5 application. The case has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, ensuring both sides are given an opportunity to present their arguments.
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.