India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 71 · 2,115 total
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.PhonePe Private Limited
This appeal challenged an order that allowed the plaintiff (PhonePe Private Limited) to withdraw its initial commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off, while retaining the liberty to file a fresh suit. The appellant (Resilient Innovations Private Limited) argued this order was erroneous and not maintainable for appeal. The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the Impugned Order did not qualify as a 'decree' under the CPC, thereby ruling on the issue of maintainability.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.Phonepe Private Limited
Resilient Innovations Private Limited challenged an order passed by the lower court that allowed Phonepe Private Limited to withdraw its trademark infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Appellant argued this grant constituted a jurisdictional error and should be appealable. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability, holding that the Impugned Order was not a 'decree' under the CPC. While avoiding comment on the merits of the IP dispute, the court provided clarity on the legal effect of such withdrawal orders.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
Lyka Labs Limited v.Lyka Biotech Private Limited
The petitioner, Lyka Labs Limited, filed an Interim Application against Lyka Biotech Private Limited for infringement of its trademark 'LYKA' and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that it had discontinued using the impugned mark and domain name. Consequently, the court passed a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using similar marks in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Ginodia Agro And Anr.
Everest Food Products Private Limited filed a petition seeking leave to institute a suit against Ginodia Agro and others, alleging infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court examined the jurisdictional requirements for such an IP dispute in Mumbai. The judge held that since the plaintiff operates within the court's jurisdiction, obtaining leave under Clause XII was unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The North Face Apparel Corp. v.Pranav Kant Sharma
The North Face Apparel Corp. filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of its application for temporary injunction against Pranav Kant Sharma (North Face Adventure Tours), alleging trademark infringement due to deceptive similarity. The respondent argued that since they operate in different classes of goods (Class 39 vs. appellant's classes), there is no likelihood of confusion or deception. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that because the parties trade in different classes, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Heritage School
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd., who alleged that the defendant was infringing on their established use of the mark 'HERITAGE' in the education sector. The court found a prima facie case for confusion among students and parents due to the similarity of marks used by both parties. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from opening any new educational institutions using 'INDIAN HERITAGE' or 'HERITAGE', and were ordered to cease using the name 'Indian Heritage World School' for their existing pre-school starting May 1, 2022.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited
The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc (COMPTIA) v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited (The Times Group)
This Delhi High Court judgment records the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between COMPTIA and The Times Group. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement, wherein The Times Group acknowledged COMPTIA's ownership of 'CHANNELCON' and agreed to immediately cease using it or deceptively similar marks like 'CHANNELICON'. Furthermore, The Times Group committed not to oppose future registration efforts for the mark.
Ageless Clinic Private Limited v.Am Ageless Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.
Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
M/S Slv Enterprises v.M/S Sree Nandi Upachar; M/S Hotel Sree Saravana Bhavan
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Slv Enterprises seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged trademark infringement. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the lower trial court to decide on its interim application promptly. However, the High Court declined to interfere in the trial court's discretionary power, noting that the respondents were granted time to file their written statements and objections. The judgment emphasizes allowing the trial court to manage the proceedings while encouraging the petitioner to pursue matters there.
Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.
Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. v.Amit Saini & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. against Amit Saini & Ors. The court found sufficient grounds, based on prior ex-parte findings, to establish a case for passing off and trademark infringement. This interim order prohibits the defendants from copying or counterfeiting the plaintiff's 'STREAX PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER' products or using deceptively similar marks like 'STREAX,' thereby preventing them from misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally registered the lawsuit filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited against M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr. The suit alleges infringement of the 'SPARX' trademark, along with claims of passing off and copyright infringement. During the initial proceedings, the defendant acknowledged receiving summons and stated that they had ceased online sales of the goods in question following objections from the plaintiff.
Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Elder Labs Limited & Anr.
The dispute between Himalaya Wellness Company and Elder Labs Limited was resolved through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement accepted by the Delhi High Court. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' rights in trademarks like 'Liv.52' and 'HIMALAYA', as well as their trade dress (orange and green color combination). In exchange for discontinuing infringing activities and paying damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms.
Rica S.P.A. v.M/S Skin Safe Industries Through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Rica S.P.A., a cosmetics company, against M/S Skin Safe Industries. The plaintiff alleged infringement and passing off concerning its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress related to hair removal products. Citing prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or copying the plaintiff's packaging and artistic works until the final hearing.
M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited v.M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited against M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'NATURASSENCE' was closely identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'NATURE'S ESSENCE'. Given the prima facie case made by the plaintiff regarding goodwill and reputation, the court restrained the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or trade dress until further hearing.
Dr Ashim Kumar Biswas v.A To Z Pharmaceuticals And Laboratory & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Ashim Kumar Biswas against A To Z Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's product was an exact copy of the plaintiff's Ayurvedic medicine, using a deceptively similar mark ('DR. BISWASH') while also naming the plaintiff as the manufacturer. Given the clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, the court restrained the defendants from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.Needs Supermart Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'Nutella' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 2, 2022. While the court maintained the existing interim injunction against the defendant, it deferred the dispute over whether products were counterfeit to the trial stage. Furthermore, the court directed both parties toward mediation and conciliation to attempt a settlement of the ongoing litigation.
KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD v.UDIT KHATRI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD against Udit Khatri & Ors. The court found that the defendants were engaging in blatant trademark infringement by selling spurious, sub-standard oil filters using names and get-ups deceptively similar to KLEENOIL's registered trademarks. Citing prima facie evidence, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from marketing or supplying products under 'KLEENOIL' or 'CLEANOIL' until further hearing.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Emaar Properties Pjsc against Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited. The plaintiff, a well-established global brand, alleged that the defendant was deceptively using the registered trademark 'EMAAR' for farm equipment to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court recognized the clear case of infringement and passing off, temporarily restraining the defendants from using the mark on any products or e-commerce platforms until further proceedings.
Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. v.Sunil Kumar Saluja
The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal challenging a decision by the Senior Examiner regarding its trademark application for 'ALPHARD' in Class 12. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the appellant to cure procedural delays and admitting the appeal, set the matter down for further hearing. Toyota argued that as a prior user of the mark since 2008, the examiner erred in declining registration.
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.