India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 40 of 71 · 2,115 total
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited v.S.Samsen Papli
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited filed a suit seeking declarations of exclusive rights over the FRANCH trademarks and associated artistic works, along with permanent injunctions against alleged infringement. The plaintiff sought to nullify certain assignment deeds executed by the defendants. However, due to the plaintiff failing to appear or prosecute the case despite court notices, the Madras High Court dismissed the entire suit.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application sought relief concerning the alleged infringement of a trademark (STIMULIV) by the defendant (Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd), which was using the mark IMMULIV. The defendant, through its director, provided assurances that they would cease manufacturing and using the impugned marks.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application was filed regarding a trademark dispute between Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The defendant, through its director Mr Abhinav, stated that they had stopped manufacturing products with the impugned mark IMMULIV and would remove them from e-commerce websites within two weeks.
M/S Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The court found that the marks used by the appellants were deceptively similar to those of the respondents, particularly considering the pharmaceutical context and potential for consumer confusion. This judgment reinforces the strict application of trademark principles in the highly regulated pharma sector.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.
Fdc Limited v.Shripal Mangalchand Jain
Fdc Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shripal Mangalchand Jain regarding trademark infringement. The dispute centers on FDC's mark PYRIMON (used for anti-bacterial isolation) versus the Defendant's mark PRIMON-N (used for birth control pills and menopausal hormone therapy).
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Ganesh Department Stores
Ganesh Grains Ltd. filed a suit against Ganesh Department Stores seeking urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny and granted leave for interim protection in the infringement and passing off suit.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd v.Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off against the Defendants, Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd. The dispute centers on the use of identical or confusingly similar marks (GLIMET, GLIMET-1, GLIMET-2) for pharmaceutical products used in treating diabetes. The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v.Union Of India And Ors
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe challenged the refusal of its trademark registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Registrar to treat the matter as a representation and reconsider the registration issue. This interim order allows Sony to address the concerns raised under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act without immediately litigating the merits in court.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Private Limited v.Prakash Distillery And Chemical Co Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the court's territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant in a trademark dispute. While acknowledging that the cause of action is not strictly necessary under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court required both parties to clarify their business presence across various locations (Delhi, Kolkata, Siliguri). The court directed the filing of specific affidavits detailing office locations and sales activities before reserving judgment on interim relief.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed a suit against Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their bathing soap packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used an identical colour scheme, trade dress, and deceptively similar artistic work on its product 'ISIE', mimicking the successful brand 'IVA'. After examining the evidence, the Madras High Court found that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Ashique Exports, granting permanent injunctions and directing the destruction of infringing stock.
M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. v.Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Private Limited
The Madras High Court formally accepted a Joint Memo of Compromise between M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. and its defendants regarding trademark infringement concerning 'ASYMMETRIX EARLY WARNING SYSTEM'. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use, display, or advertising of the disputed mark in relation to software products. In exchange, the plaintiff waived most other reliefs sought in the suit, leading the court to decree the case based on the terms of the compromise.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr v.New Direction Exports & Crafts
In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.
The Polo/Lauren Company L. P v.Reekha Bhati
The suit was filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L. P against Reekha Bhati for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks (POLO, POLO Ralph Lauren) on apparel and clothing goods. The court found that the defendant used identical/deceptively similar marks in relation to impugned goods, causing confusion and deception.
Rajendra Kumar Nanda & Ors. v.Dinesh Chandra Khimji Nandha & Ors.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions related to business operations, trade name usage, and trademark registration. While the court noted the plaintiffs' claims regarding family rights and potential infringement of their 'Khimji Jewels' mark, it also considered the defendants' counter-arguments, including challenges to existing agreements. The court ultimately issued an interim restraint order preventing the defendants from publishing any defamatory or disparaging advertisements against the plaintiffs until further hearing.
Good Life Industries v.J R J Foods Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by J R J Foods Pvt Ltd against an earlier order that granted interim injunction to Good Life Industries. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off, where Good Life claimed its mark 'MICHI'S' was being imitated by J R J Foods' mark 'MISHI'S'. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that in a passing-off action, the likelihood of confusion among an ordinary purchaser is key, regardless of actual damage or intent.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Snapdealluckydraws.Org.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Snapdeal Private Limited's application to implead numerous rogue websites as defendants in its ongoing infringement suit. The court extended existing interim orders, restraining these newly added parties from passing off the 'SNAPDEAL' trademark. Furthermore, it issued specific directions compelling certain defendants and registrars to suspend domain name registrations and notify internet service providers to block access to the infringing sites.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Amman Trader
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark dispute where M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited sought permanent injunctions against M/s.Amman Trader for infringing its registered mark 'DHEEPAM' by using 'SRI DEEPAM' on edible oil products, and for passing off inferior goods as the plaintiff's. The parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo, which was accepted and decreed by the court. This settlement ensures that the defendant will cease all infringing activities related to the plaintiff's brand.
N Dinesh Kumar v.Shweta Khandelwal
This appeal challenged a lower court's temporary injunction that restrained the appellant from using his trademark 'Matruveda' due to alleged deceptive similarity with the respondent's registered mark, 'Matru Ayurveda'. The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal test—considering the marks through the eyes of the 'quintessential common man.' Consequently, the High Court set aside the injunction order and directed the lower court to rehear the matter afresh.
Unilever Plc v.Radhe Cosmetics
The Bombay High Court passed an interim application order, confirming a previous order and granting a temporary injunction. The injunction restrains Radhe Cosmetics from manufacturing or trading cosmetic preparations using marks or trade dress deceptively similar to Unilever's registered trademarks (like LAKME NINE TO FIVE) and copyrighted artistic works.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed a Leave Petition against MHS Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged infringement of its long-standing pharmaceutical trademark, SINAREST, by the Defendant's mark, SINARITE. The court granted the leave petition and directed both parties to file affidavits in reply and rejoinder within specified timelines.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The dispute involved allegations that the Defendant was illicitly using the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, including trademarks, trade dress, and copyright in label artwork. The Defendant claimed a license from a proprietor in Saudi Arabia.
B4U Television Network India Limited v.Jay Shree Praveen Enterprises And Ors
The Bombay High Court addressed an Interim Application filed by B4U Television Network India Limited concerning the pending Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that some defendants had not yet been served and directed the plaintiff to complete service at the earliest.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The Plaintiff (Unilever Plc) filed suit alleging that the Defendant was illicitly using its trademark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork on rival products. The court found prima facie evidence of violation, noting that the defendant's claim of an international license did not negate infringement rights in India.
Unilever PLC v.Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Yc Electric Vehicle & Ors.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Bajaj Auto Limited sought compliance regarding the use of its 'CHETAK' brand. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants claimed no E-rickshaws under the 'CHETAK' trademark had been sold since a previous interim order was issued. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit addressing these claims within three weeks, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Khaitan India Limited v.Khaitar Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of its distinctive trade mark 'Khaitan' and passing off against the defendants, who used the similar mark 'Khaitar'. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that since the defendant also possessed a registered trademark, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court ultimately dismissed the interlocutory application seeking dismissal.
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.