India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 71 · 2,115 total
Control Print Limited v.Anmol Chugh Trading As Shavias Enterprises and Ors.
In a mixed IP dispute involving copyright infringement and passing off related to 'The Mask Lab,' the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Control Print Limited. The court issued injunctions restraining the defendants from using designs substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic work, and from passing off their products as those of 'The Mask Lab.' Additionally, the order directed the removal of malicious reviews posted on the plaintiff's Google page, providing immediate protection pending final disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries alleging infringement of its distinctive original artwork, 'Elle 18 face,' used on nail polish packaging. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of similar artistic designs and potential passing off. Both parties amicably settled the matter before the Bombay High Court.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe and agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging infringement and passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe but agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Electro International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
M/s.Allied Business Solutions Private Limited v.M/s.Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd
M/s. Allied Business Solutions Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd, alleging infringement of its copyrighted computer software 'MEDIVEIW' and associated trademarks. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. However, the plaintiff subsequently informed the court that the defendants were no longer using the program and requested to withdraw the suit.
Emami Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Handsome' and 'Glow and Handsome,' Emami Limited sought an injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in the Calcutta High Court. However, Emami decided to withdraw its current application (GA No.3/2021), stating that it had filed a substantially similar application earlier (GA No.2/2020). The court granted leave for withdrawal and directed that the original, pending application (GA No.2/2020) be taken up for hearing on July 5, 2021.
Rajalakshmi Match Works v.Satpal Sindhi
The plaintiff, Rajalakshmi Match Works, filed a civil suit against several defendants seeking permanent injunctions to restrain them from passing off their safety matches as the plaintiff's by using the 'RAJHA'S SHRIFAL' trade mark and infringing the associated copyright. During the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Civil Suit had become infructuous.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.M/S Frankfinn Creations & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., restraining M/s Frankfinn Creations from using the trademark 'FRANKFINN'. The court found a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff has long-standing goodwill associated with its registered mark for aviation and training services. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, inventory infringing materials, and examine their financial records.
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd v.Imperial Heritage School
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd successfully secured an interim injunction against Imperial Heritage School in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs, who operate a well-established school under the name 'The Heritage School,' alleged that the defendants were attempting to register and use the deceptively similar mark 'IMPERIAL HERITAGE SCHOOL.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm and confusion in the market.
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited v.M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited, alleging wrongful cancellation of an exclusive trademark license agreement. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the termination notices issued by the defendant. However, the court ultimately ruled that since the controversy primarily arose from contractual terms rather than statutory infringement, the matter was subject to arbitration as per the existing clause in the agreements.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited v.Deepali Company Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited, which sought to overturn a trial court's rejection of interim injunctions. The core issue was whether the appellant had established a prima facie case for trademark protection in the ongoing family dispute. The court held that because the suit/appeal lacked proper authorization (Board Resolution) and involved conflicting interests among equal shareholders, no prima facie case could be made out, thus justifying the trial court's refusal of temporary injunctions.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
SAP SE v.SAP HANA SERVER ACCESS HYDERABAD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of SAP SE against the defendants. The court found merit in SAP's claims regarding its proprietary software and trademarks ('SAP', 'SAP HANA'). Consequently, the court directed the immediate de-activation of multiple infringing websites and social media accounts, as well as freezing a specific bank account linked to the alleged pirated activities.
Mohalla Tech Priavte Limited v.Lagdhir Jugaldip Bharatkumar
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark suit. While the appellant argued the initial order failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court chose not to interfere with the interim order at that stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with hearing the Injunction Application on its merits, ensuring both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products, the Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's request for immediate interim injunction. The court declined to grant an ex parte order, emphasizing that the defendants had claimed prior use of the mark since 2018 and that public interest required them to be given a chance to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants, allowing the litigation process to proceed with due consideration for all parties.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v.Rajendra Mahadev Dakare
In this trademark infringement suit, Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against Rajendra Mahadev Dakare regarding the use of the mark 'RENAISSANCE'. The plaintiff argued that their established global hospitality brand was being threatened by the defendant's application for a similar mark. The Delhi High Court allowed the necessary applications and issued notice to the defendant, allowing the suit to proceed while granting interim relief pending further hearings.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Vishal Products
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Vishal Products alleging infringement of copyright and passing off concerning the distinctive artistic label and trade dress of its 'WHEEL' detergent. The parties reached a consent order before the Bombay High Court, settling the dispute without pressing for damages or costs. Under the settlement, Vishal Products acknowledged HUL's proprietary rights, agreed to cease using the similar packaging, and committed to destroying all existing infringing stock.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. v.Monsendeep Kaur
The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction to Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. against Monsendeep Kaur regarding the trademark 'Pamoist'. The plaintiffs established that they were prior adopters and users of the mark, which was used by their charitable trust before being transferred to Pamoist International. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using the disputed mark or similar variants until the matter is further heard, while clarifying that the Trademark Registry retains full authority over the opposition proceedings.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Anil Rathi v.Shree Sidhbali Steels Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Rathi' in manufacturing steel items. The plaintiff, Anil Rathi, challenged the defendants' use of the mark, alleging that a lease agreement was merely a camouflage for unauthorized production. While the defendants claimed they were operating under a valid license, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit and documents regarding a guarantee provided by Defendant No.1 to secure loans for Defendant No.2. The interim injunction remains in place pending further arguments.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed an Interim Application against MHS Pharmaceuticals. The court noted that the dispute was complex and did not meet the criteria for an immediate ad-interim order, requiring a final hearing after both parties submitted additional evidence.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.D S Foods & Ors.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd challenged an order that referred its trademark dispute against D S Foods & Ors. to arbitration. The petitioner asserted ownership of the trademarks "SAGAR," "RATNA," and "SAGAR RATNA" and alleged infringement by the respondents, who were franchisees. Despite arguments for arbitrability based on the franchise agreement, the Delhi High Court ultimately intervened, finding that the core dispute concerning trademark rights was not amenable to arbitration due to inherent jurisdictional limitations.
Cutis Biotech Thr.Its Sole Prop. v.Serum Institute of India Private
This Bombay High Court appeal addressed a dispute over the trademark 'Covishield' between Cutis Biotech and Serum Institute of India. Although both parties had pending applications for the mark, Cutis Biotech sought an interim injunction based on passing off. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant, especially given the critical public health role of the 'Covishield' vaccine in ongoing vaccination drives.
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.