India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 71 · 2,115 total
New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess v.New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess - Nunpahal Unavagam LLP
This case involved a dispute over the use of the trade name 'New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess' between two entities. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off, along with damages. However, both parties mutually agreed to resolve all existing disputes, including those related to the trademark claims, through arbitration.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyrighted computer application, 'OLOG', and its associated trademark. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from reproducing or passing off services using similar applications or marks. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to pursue the matter in a pending case before the NCLT.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered design, trademark, and copyright by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of their branded bottles. However, the court noted that the sole defendant had passed away prior to the hearing date. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal), the suit was ultimately dismissed.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered design, logo, and trademark by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting for sales made using the protected bottle designs. However, during the proceedings, it was reported that the sole defendant had passed away. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal to the individual), the court dismissed the suit.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd concerning the misuse of its 'AMUL' brand on social media. While initial injunctions were granted, the court examined the claims for damages against Defendants No. 1 and No. 4. Recognizing that both defendants had taken remedial steps, including removing the infringing content, the Court dismissed the claim for damages due to a lack of evidence of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was closed against these two defendants, while proceedings remain pending against Defendant No. 5.
Murlidhar Gyanchandani v.The State of Jharkhand
This petition before the Jharkhand High Court addresses allegations made by R.S.P.L. Health Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Vedanta Tea Agro Industries regarding the misuse of the 'Ghari' Trademark and Copyright. The controversy stems from an ex parte ad interim injunction passed by the District Court, which led to a contempt reference in Delhi. After reviewing the record, the High Court noted that pending proceedings before the Delhi Courts would have far-reaching effects on these cases.
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v.SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, both parties expressed interest in reaching an amicable resolution. Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement discussions. The court also listed the case for reporting any settlement on November 9, 2021, while maintaining existing interim orders.
HT MEDIA LIMITED v.BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit between HT Media Limited and Brainlink International, Inc. The court provided procedural directions regarding the continuation of interim orders, setting deadlines for parties to file replies to various applications (including those seeking anti-suit injunctions and condonation of delay), and scheduled further hearings for pleading completion.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
M/s.THALAPPAKATTI NAIDU ANANDHA VILAS BIRIYANI HOTEL v.M/s.THALAPPAKATTU BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, granting a permanent injunction against M/s.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food for trademark infringement and passing off. Although the defendant later changed its name to 'AL RAHMAN BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD,' the court found that the initial use of the offending mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to distinctive trade names in the competitive food service industry.
Hasmukhrai And Co. v.Nishi Enterprises
The Bombay High Court disposed of the interim application after both parties reached an agreement. The Defendants submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and agreed to destroy all infringing labels and materials within three weeks.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite procedural objections raised by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the 'trinity test' (prior user, reputation, and likelihood of deception) at the trial level. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was based on potentially forged documents provided to the trial court, leading the High Court to grant interim relief.
Sagacious Research Private Limited v.Vivek Dahiya & Ors.
In this matter concerning the 'SAGACIOUS' mark, the parties agreed to pursue an amicable resolution rather than immediate litigation. The court facilitated this by directing both the plaintiff and defendants to attend mediation and conciliation proceedings on August 23, 2021. While some interlocutory applications were allowed subject to exceptions, the primary focus shifted towards resolving the trademark and domain name disputes outside of court.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
Jolen Inc. filed two civil suits in the Madras High Court against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trade marks (JOLEN) and copyright in its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to deceptive imitation and passing off. However, on August 9, 2021, the court dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff had failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
This case involved Jolen Inc. filing multiple suits against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trademarks (JOLEN) and copyright in the artistic work and trade dress of its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks and designs. However, the court ultimately dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
M/s.Kwik Patch Ltd. v.Mr.N.R.Rajagopalan
M/s. Kwik Patch Ltd. filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court alleging infringement and passing off against Mr. N.R. Rajagopalan, claiming that his use of the label 'KOOL BOND' violated their trademark 'KWIK'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act. However, due to the suit having been pending for over 20 years and a lack of inclination from both parties to pursue the matter further, the court dismissed the case.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Castrol Limited v.Goel Traders
This case involved Castrol Limited filing a suit against Goel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the use of similar graphic labels and color schemes on their gear oil packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of their brand identity. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Amit Kumar Mishra v.State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Mishra regarding alleged large-scale trademark violation. The petitioner sought an omnibus direction from the State authorities to prohibit unauthorized use of his trademark. However, the court held that such broad directives are inappropriate and directed the petitioner to identify specific violators and pursue civil or criminal proceedings against them.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
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.