India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 125 · 3,740 total
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
Castrol Limited v.Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy, Trading As Sri Karthikeya Traders
Castrol Limited filed a suit against Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy for trademark infringement concerning engine oils and lubricants. The court examined the deceptive similarities between Castrol's trademarks, including 'CASTROL' and its associated devices, and the defendant's products, which used similar packaging and marks like 'CRYSTAL'. Despite the defendant making minor changes to their marks during the pendency of the suit, the court found these alterations did not negate the infringement.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
Purshotam Keshwani & Ors. v.Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding alleged non-compliance with a prior injunction restraining the use of the trademark 'LIBAS'. The court clarified that while the defendants were previously granted a limited, temporary exception allowing them to use a specific logo format ('RIYAZ GANGJI' in bold with 'LIBAS' underneath), this pro tem arrangement did not supersede the original comprehensive injunction. The court directed the parties to engage in settlement talks regarding any alleged violations of the standalone mark 'LIBAS', setting a date for compliance.
Bayona Spa v.Varun Exports & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.
M/s.D.R.Raanka Bros v.Mr.Sumti A.Challani & M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros seeking rectification of registered trademarks held by Mr. Sumti A. Challani and M/s. Challani Ranka Jewellery. The court found a 'striking similarity' between the petitioner's established marks (D.R./D.R.Raanka Bros) and the respondent's newly registered marks (C.R.J., C.R.), which were obtained after 2003. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the register within three weeks.
Smt. Uma Rathi v.Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Smt. Uma Rathi initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Ratni Power' registered by Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd., citing grounds under Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court granted exemptions for filing certain documents while simultaneously directing that notice be issued to the respondents. This marks the formal commencement of litigation challenging the validity and registration of the disputed trademark.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Private Limited, M/s.Flora Foods v.Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, Zomato Limited, Swiggy India
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, alongside online platforms Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar names like 'KARAIKUDI AACHI BRIYANI MANDI' and mandatory orders to remove these listings from digital platforms. While the judgment details the extensive claims for injunctions and removal, it does not provide a final conclusive ruling on all reliefs in this excerpt.
Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd. v.R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd., preventing R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr. from continuing to use packaging that is deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress for Ball Head Racers. The court found a prima facie case regarding the defendants' attempt to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff, noting the similarity in color combination and overall get-up despite differences in trademarks.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Seales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Seales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petitioner had sought to remove and expunge the trademark registration 'TINTOMETER' from the register, citing grounds of wrongful registration or non-use. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on two successive occasions, the petition was dismissed for default.
Sfp Sons India Private Limited v.Mr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark-related suits, including infringement and rectification petitions, involving M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court framed a comprehensive set of 11 issues to be determined during the trial. These issues cover core disputes such as trademark infringement, passing off, validity of registrations, and the scope of assignment rights related to the mark 'DEHLVI'. This consolidation streamlines the litigation process for both parties.
Hp Organic Foods Private Limited v.Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hp Organic Foods Private Limited against Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors. The court allowed procedural exemptions for the plaintiff, including filing additional documents and waiving pre-litigation mediation. Crucially, regarding the injunction application (Order XXXIX), the court noted the plaintiff's claims of extensive sales and deceptive similarity in the 'INDANA FRESH' brand used by the defendants. The court directed notice to the defendants and mandated them to maintain detailed accounts of their product sales.
Srinath Kumbargeri Venkatachalappa v.C.A. Shivaram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in trademark disputes involving the brand 'PARIMALA COFFEE'. The court granted exemptions regarding document submission formats, allowing the petitioner flexibility due to logistical constraints. Crucially, the court also allowed the petitioner to file digitally signed and notarized affidavits despite their attorney being abroad, streamlining procedural requirements for complex IP litigation.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr. v.Diamond Autos
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of 'HERO' trademarks, Hero Investcorp Private Limited sought various interim reliefs against Diamond Autos. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service due to urgency. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises in Ludhiana to verify the alleged counterfeit products, setting the stage for further proceedings on the injunction application.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited appealed the rejection of its application to rectify the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. The core dispute revolves around whether Reckitt & Colman's use of a similar mark, specifically 'DRAIN XPERT POWDER', constitutes infringement or grounds for rectification. The appellant argues that the slight variation in spelling and presentation is deceitful and confusingly similar to their registered trademark. The court has listed the matter for further hearing to consider these complex arguments regarding similarity and deceptive intent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to initiate trademark rectification proceedings against Alkem Laboratories. The core issue was challenging the validity of the Defendant's registered mark, ALSITA, in Class 5. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing, allowing the parties time to file their respective responses.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. v.Dhruvil Damajibhai Zadafiya As D D Fashion & Anr.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of a trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner argued that their internationally registered and long-standing wordmark, 'NUTRAFOL,' relates to over-the-counter hair growth products. The court accepted the petition and directed the issuance of notice to the respondents, setting the stage for further litigation regarding the validity and use of the mark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.Shubhom Juneja
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
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.