India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 40 of 125 · 3,740 total
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v.President And Fellows Of Harvard College
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute challenged an arbitral award that directed the transfer of its domain name, <kashmirharvard.edu.in>, to President and Fellows of Harvard College. The dispute arose from a complaint filed under the INDRP alleging trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity between the domain name and the globally recognized 'HARVARD' mark. The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, finding that the domain was identical to the trademark and caused confusion, thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.
Aryan Educational Society v.C.D. Goyal Foundation
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Aryan Educational Society against C.D. Goyal Foundation. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for an ad-interim injunction notice, noting that the defendant was allegedly using a similar mark ('The Aryan School') in Haryana despite the plaintiff holding a registered trademark. Furthermore, the court formally registered the suit and granted various procedural exemptions to facilitate the ongoing litigation.
Ajay Goyal v.Anil Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement case filed by Ajay Goyal against Anil Verma & Anr. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction, recognizing claims of deceptive similarity between 'SUFIYANA' and 'SUFIYAMA', alongside copying of trade dress and artistic work. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing products and materials, ensuring the continuation of the suit while addressing urgent concerns regarding trademark infringement.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Mohan Kumar Kotana
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the ongoing trademark dispute between Taco Bell Corp. and Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises. The court granted certain procedural exemptions while directing parties to adhere strictly to commercial courts rules regarding document submission. Crucially, the main petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing mark (Registration No. 3628356) was advanced, with notice issued to the respondents to file their response within four weeks.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Lalit Kumar Jaggia
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit against Lalit Kumar Jaggia seeking permanent injunctions due to the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, including 'LEVI'S', 'Two Horse Logo', and associated designs, as well as copyright violation in its labels. The court found the defendant guilty of flagrant infringement and decreed the suit for permanent injunction along with awarding punitive damages.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Idam Natural Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd., a leading FMCG manufacturer, against its defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and disparagement. The court found that the Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress and registered mark 'SECRET TEMPTATION' were being referenced negatively in an advertisement. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 was restrained from broadcasting the impugned video, and Defendant No. 2 (YouTube) was directed to block/takedown the offending content.
M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd v.Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the proper forum for trademark rectification proceedings between Prestige Estates Projects Ltd and Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that when an infringement suit is pending, questions concerning the validity of a trademark registration should be handled by the High Court, not solely by the Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of all related rectification petitions from the Registrar's office to the High Court for adjudication.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Sheik Azeez-Ur Rahaman Trading as Kramson and The Registrar of Trade Marks
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals filed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'KRAMSON' from the register. The court noted that the first respondent's mark had expired due to non-renewal. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition but granted liberty for it to be revived should the registration be renewed by the respondent.
M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Incorporation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited, who holds registered trademarks for 'BURGRILL'. The petitioner sought restraint against the respondent, despite a terminated franchise agreement, due to continued unauthorized use of the mark at an outlet in Vadodara. Citing the termination and evidence of ongoing infringement, the Court restrained the respondents from operating the specific outlet or using the trademark until arbitration commences.
M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd. v.M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., to implead two additional parties—M/s Satnam Mart Private Limited and M/s JK Print Pack—in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs. This move was based on evidence gathered during a local commission inspection, which revealed that the defendant's infringing products were manufactured by Satnam Mart and printed by JK Print Pack. The court proceeded to issue summonses to these newly added defendants, ensuring the litigation can proceed against all responsible parties.
havells india limited v.azad singh
Havells India Limited sued Azad Singh for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Azad Singh's use of 'REO-LT' on low tension wires deceptively imitated Havells’ registered trademark 'REO'. Havells claimed significant brand recognition and consumer confusion due to the similarity between the marks.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
Vidli Restaurants Limited v.Alok Sovind Chandewar
Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.
M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath v.M/s.Hotel Swagath, Dhanturi Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath against M/s.Hotel Swagath and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought to remove or cancel the trademark 'HOTEL SWAGATH' (Device) registered in Class-43. The court noted that the proprietors of the petitioner hotel had passed away, leading to the withdrawal of a related infringement suit by the first respondent. Consequently, the Transfer Original Petition was dismissed as abated, though it can be revived by legal heirs.
Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Sew-Eurodrive, setting aside the Trademark Registry's order that declared their marks 'SEW' and 'SEW-EURODRIVE' abandoned. The court criticized the Registry for failing to provide timely alerts regarding procedural changes posted only on its website, noting that applicants cannot be expected to monitor the site 24/7. Consequently, the applications were restored to the file of the Trademarks Registry to proceed based on their merits.
M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Sivakumar G.Nalli
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Sivakumar G.Nalli and others regarding the 'Nalli' brand. Despite extensive evidence presented by the plaintiff, including proof of long-standing reputation and registration, the court dismissed the core prayers seeking permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages. The judgment highlights the high burden required for a successful infringement claim in civil court.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Scales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Scales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petition sought the removal and expungement of two trademark registrations ('Tintometer') based on grounds including wrongful registration and non-use. However, due to the petitioner's counsel failing to provide instructions, the court dismissed the entire petition for default.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Amba Motorcyles Thr. Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor / Top MotoComponents Private Limited v.Mahavir Prasad
In a significant development for trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to replace one plaintiff with its successor-in-interest, Top MotoComponents Private Limited, who had acquired the assets and liabilities related to the 'TOP' trademark. Furthermore, the court subsequently accepted a joint application from both parties, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement. This outcome provides clarity on succession in IP disputes while finalizing the underlying commercial dispute.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
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.