India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 71 · 2,115 total
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vedansh Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Vedansh Industries. The proprietor of the Defendant agreed to submit to a decree in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, ordering the destruction of seized goods by the Defendants.
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging infringement of its registered trademark VOLINI, copyright violation in its packaging art, and passing off due to the use of 'VOLINEX'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
DINA MALAR A Partnership Concern v.K.Ramasubbu
This suit was filed by Dina Malar against several defendants, including K. Ramasubbu, alleging infringement of its trade marks ('DINA MALA') and copyright related to the work 'DINAMALAR'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and surrender of infringing materials. However, despite the initial filing under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
R.Venkitapathy v.Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd.
This case involved a dispute filed by R.Venkitapathy against Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd., alleging infringement of trade marks ('DINA MALAR') and copyright in stylized lettering and associated devices. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to prevent deceptive similarity and passing off. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its registered mark 'VOLINI'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks like 'VOLINEX' and imitation packaging. The dispute was ultimately resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages regarding the use of their trademarks (LION, LUCAS TVS) and distinctive packaging on auto electrical parts. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiffs chose to withdraw the suit.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were infringing their registered trademarks (LION, DEVICE OF LION) and committing copyright violations through the use of deceptively similar branding and slavish imitation of distinctive packaging for auto electrical parts. Despite the detailed claims seeking injunctions and damages, the plaintiffs ultimately decided to withdraw the suit before a final judgment was passed.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Babbar
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 19 of 2021 after both the Plaintiff (Hindustan Unilever Ltd) and Defendant (Babbar) reached a settlement. The suit was decreed in terms of specific prayer clauses, with the Plaintiff agreeing not to press for damages.
Trupti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust Through Bilkis M Mir
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim injunction granted to the original plaintiff (the Trust). The dispute centered on the use of the name and logo 'ANANT' in the educational sector. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark since 2018, thus preventing irreparable injury from occurring to them. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the identical or deceptively similar brand name.
Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the 'Cars24' trademark in Google AdWords. The Plaintiffs sought to press applications for vacation of a previously granted interim injunction, which restrained Defendants from using or purchasing deceptively similar marks as keywords. The court noted that while cross-undertakings were in place, the core issues required a full hearing on merits. Consequently, the matter was listed for further arguments and case compilations.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/S Skynet Placements & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited against M/S Skynet Placements & Ors. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MACLEODS' for deceptive purposes, specifically related to fake job offers. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from promoting or offering services under the mark, and banks were directed to freeze specific accounts linked to the alleged fraudulent activity.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv v.The Origin Ventures & Ors
In a significant ruling for global beverage giants, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv. The court found that the defendants were using the well-known 'CORONA' and 'BUDWEISER' trademarks and logos in a derogatory manner on their clothing line products. Recognizing the prima facie case, the court restrained the defendants from selling or marketing these disparaging products until further hearing, protecting the goodwill of the established brands.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Silvassa Bottling Co
The dispute involved alleged infringement concerning a registered label used by Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd for its beverage product, JEERU. Following an ad-interim order appointing a Court Receiver, the parties reached an agreement regarding labeling changes and the handling of seized goods.
Procter And Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of an Interim Application filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court confirmed the continuation of a previous ex parte order and directed that further orders would be passed on the cause of action in passing off.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vansh Cosmatic & Anr
The court heard an interim application regarding a commercial IP suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Vansh Cosmatic & Anr. The defendants offered a token amount as damages, but the court noted that the counterfeit HUL goods were being sold at MRP, indicating significant potential damage. Consequently, the court granted further injunctions and allowed the seizure of counterfeit goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Aarif Miraj And Anr
The Bombay High Court heard an interim application filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Aarif Miraj and others. The court confirmed the execution of previous orders, granted an injunction concerning passing off, and allowed the plaintiff liberty to file a further application for the destruction of counterfeit products.
Loreal S.A. v.Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Loreal S.A., a global beauty brand, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing-off. The court found that the defendants were operating a 'rogue website' (www.lorealglobal.in) and using email addresses mimicking L'OREAL's domain to deceive the public. Crucially, the court issued specific directions compelling the domain registrar and telecom service provider to disclose user details and block access to the infringing online assets, establishing a strong precedent for digital IP enforcement.
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. v.Victoria Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.
Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd v.LN Agency
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd, the registered proprietor of the 'LUXXUBERANCE' trademark. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the court appointed a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver in Jamshedpur to seize and inventory all infringing goods and issue a temporary injunction against the Defendant's further misuse of the trademark.
RICA S.P.A. v.JATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.
STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, INC. v.STANLEY SWITCHGEAR PRODUCTS
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Stanley Black and Decker against Stanley Switchgear Products. While allowing procedural applications for filing additional documents, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit seeking permanent injunction based on an alleged violation of a 1975 undertaking regarding the use of the 'Stanley' trademark. Crucially, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an immediate ex-parte interim injunction, noting that there was no apparent evidence of goods being marketed beyond the scope of the original agreement.
Emami Ltd. v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Emami Ltd. vs Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. saw its multi-faceted IP litigation reach a conclusion through settlement in the Calcutta High Court. The original suit, which involved claims of infringement across trademark, copyright, design, and passing off, was formally withdrawn by both parties. The court accepted the Terms of Settlement, decreeing the parent suit and disposing of all connected applications. This resolution allows both companies to move forward without further legal entanglement.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
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.