India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 71 · 2,115 total
MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v.COURTYARD HOLIDAYS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marriott Worldwide Corporation against Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant was misleading consumers by using marks and domain names identical or similar to Marriott's registered 'COURTYARD' brand. Despite the defendant having a registration, the court noted that this registration was obtained through false representation, leading to the restraint order.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics Inc. against Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendants were operating websites offering footwear bearing New Balance's mark without authorization, leading to apprehension of counterfeit goods. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate deactivation and blocking of the infringing websites.
M/S Thind Industries v.M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between M/S Thind Industries and M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation. Recognizing the appellant's willingness to modify its branding, the court granted permission for M/S Thind Industries to revise its trademark and label. This interim decision allows the parties to move forward with a resolution by allowing the appellant time to submit the revised materials.
Indian Oncology Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the trade mark application 'Indian Oncology Foundation' by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that while the applicant claimed long-term use and reputation, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence—such as advertising expenditure or sales data—to prove that the descriptive mark had acquired secondary meaning. This ruling emphasizes that mere usage is insufficient; concrete proof of distinctiveness must be presented to overcome statutory objections.
Ht Media Ltd v.Pooja Sharma & Ors.
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted an immediate injunction protecting Ht Media Ltd's 'SHINE' trademark and its website www.shine.com from unauthorized use by rogue defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using the plaintiff's IP to deceive the public through fraudulent job/career services. Crucially, the judgment issued sweeping directions to various service providers—including ISPs, telecom operators, domain registrars, and Gmail—to block infringing websites and disclose user information, effectively providing a powerful mechanism for online IP enforcement.
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd v.VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking leave to initiate a lawsuit against VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The petitioner argued that no such leave was required under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, as the main suit addressed these IP violations. Furthermore, counsel established the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction based on the Petitioner's Mumbai registration. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited
Central Park Estates Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition against Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited regarding the use of 'CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary applications, dispensing with pre-institution mediation for urgent reliefs. The court subsequently issued summons to all defendants and set the matter for further pleadings and arguments on the injunction application.
Shri Govind Baheti v.Shri Kamal Kishore Baheti
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement related to the use of the 'VRAJ' trademark for tractor parts. The petitioner claimed that the respondents were violating the territorial restrictions set forth in the 2012 settlement by allowing their wife's firm to sell spare parts bearing the mark outside the permitted five states. Consequently, the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent, setting a date for returnable appearance.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
M.Gagan Bothra v.The Central Government
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents to act upon a 2013 order from the Central Government regarding R.Anbarasu's misuse of the National Emblem. The court found that despite central government directions, the State Government failed to initiate action against the ex-member of parliament for misusing the emblem on his letter pad.
Maruti Air Couriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v.Ram Singh Rathore & 9 Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that their former franchisees (Defendants nos. 1 to 9) and a newly incorporated entity (Defendant no. 10) were continuing to use the original artistic label and name of 'Maruti Air Couriers' on consignment notes and trade documents after the termination of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs claimed this constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
DLF Limited v.Rediff.Com India Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'EMPORIO' brand, DLF Limited and Defendant No. 2 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The Delhi High Court formally recorded this settlement, decreeing the terms against Defendant No. 2 while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally against the remaining defendants. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex IP disputes within the judicial framework.
Inter Ikea Systems B V v.Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed applications filed by the defendants (Italica Floor Tiles) seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte decree passed against them for trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that while the plaintiffs had a strong case regarding their established brand, the procedural lapse and lack of opportunity for the defendants to present their defense warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the main suit has been revived, allowing both parties to proceed on the merits.
Marico Limited v.Dabur India Limited
Marico Limited filed a suit against Dabur India Limited before the Calcutta High Court seeking urgent relief. Given the urgency presented, the court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted necessary leave under various provisions, including Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing the proceedings to move forward.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Urmilla Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Aditya Infotech Limited against Urmilla Jain. The Plaintiff, a leading security solutions provider, alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit CCTV cables using its registered trademark 'CP PLUS' and copying its trade dress. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill. This interim order immediately restrained the Defendant from further infringing activities until the final hearing.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.Shivani Cosmetics Through Its Partners Vinod Monga and Nishant Monga
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. against Shivani Cosmetics. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the defendant was copying not only the registered trademark but also the trade dress, copyright, writing style, and overall packaging of the plaintiff's 'BLUE HEAVEN GsET BOLD' eyeliner product. This crucial order protects the plaintiff's goodwill while the full trial proceeds.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd v.M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co
The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd filed a suit against M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the defendants conceded to certain prayers, and the plaintiffs restricted their claim for damages. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, and awarding damages amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v.CIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Global Car Group Pte Ltd. v.Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Global Car Group alleged that Ola Fleet Technologies was infringing its 'Cars24' trademarks by bidding on them as keywords in Google Ads. While the petitioners argued this constituted use of the mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court did not rule on the merits at this stage. Instead, it directed the respondents to temporarily refrain from such keyword bidding until the legal position is clarified, allowing both parties to proceed with their respective arguments.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd v.Head Digital Works Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd against Head Digital Works Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was leveraging the plaintiff's established reputation by using the trademark 'WinZo' as a meta/title tag on its competing website, thereby causing consumer confusion and benefiting from the plaintiff's goodwill. Despite receiving a Cease and Desist notice, the defendant only made minor alterations to the mark, prompting the court to issue an immediate restraint order.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & M/s. V.R. Holdings v.Mr. Guddu Ansari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited, finding that Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by operating a nearly identical website and domain (www.heroelectro.in). The court found that the defendants were actively duping consumers by misrepresenting their affiliation with the renowned 'Hero Electric' brand to solicit dealership enquiries and collect large sums of money. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs, and mandated the transfer of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiffs.
Sss Lungie Company v.SSS Lingam Company
Sss Lungie Company filed a civil suit against SSS Lingam Company and others, alleging trademark passing off and copyright infringement related to the '3 ROSES label' used on lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages for unauthorized use of their brand and artistic work. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Allergan, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Allergan, Inc. challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark in the Delhi High Court. The court initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the Registrar, allowing the defendant two weeks to file a response. This order sets the stage for a substantive hearing on whether Allergan meets the criteria for trademark registration.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd And Anr. v.Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Sporta Technologies regarding the domain name 'www.fandream11.com'. Following disclosure from GoDaddy, the court removed Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd from the suit and impleaded Mr. Bapi Das as Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint to seek a declaration of their mark 'DREAM11' as a 'well-known' trademark, allowing the litigation to proceed against the actual domain owner.
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s JB Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s JB Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright designs associated with 'hotpot' products. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory directions to stop the unauthorized use and sale of deceptively similar goods. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
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.