India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 41 of 71 · 2,115 total
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Kishan Hirji Gothi Sole Proprietor Of Bubalus Beverages
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kishan Hirji Gothi for alleged infringement. The Defendant submitted to the decree terms, leading the Court to dispose of the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Emami Ltd v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking modification of a previous interim order. The court observed that the suit involved infringement and passing off and was valued in excess of the specified limit. Consequently, the case (IN EOS/4/2020) and the associated application (IA GA 1 of 2021) were transferred to the Commercial Division.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.JK Shian Cement Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between JK Lakshmi Cement Limited and JK Shian Cement Private Limited. The court allowed a defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing its written statement, noting that negotiations regarding settlement had taken place. Additionally, while acknowledging ongoing disputes over interim orders, the court granted time for defendants to file their replies, setting a future hearing date.
M/S. B.R.Industries v.State Of Meghalaya & 2 Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by respondents in a trademark infringement case involving 'Megha' cashew nuts. The court clarified that under the specific administrative rules governing tribal areas like Nongpoh, courts presided over by Deputy Commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioners function as Principal Civil Courts of Original Jurisdiction. Consequently, these courts are deemed competent to try suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thereby upholding the petitioner's right to pursue the infringement claim.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd and E9 Intrakt v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunctions under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendant from using the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for their motion picture. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai', leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for its motion picture. The plaintiffs had previously secured an interim injunction regarding this matter. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai'. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a memo stating that they were not pressing the suit further, leading the court to dismiss the case as not prosecuted.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mankind Pharma Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement combined with passing off. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that since both parties had offices in Delhi, the Bombay High Court lacked competence to hear the common law claim. The court rejected this submission, affirmed its jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and made the Clause XIV Petition absolute.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Taparia Industries And Anr
The court addressed a Leave Petition filed by Everest Food Products Private Limited seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and infringement. The court directed that since the Defendants were in Jaipur, service must be effected by courier with proof of delivery.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Bajaj Electricals Limited v.Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd
Bajaj Electricals Limited filed an Interim Application against Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd for alleged trademark infringement related to the mark "BAJAJ SUPERMART". The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants that they would cease using the infringing mark pending the final disposal of the application and remove all associated signage.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Bhcosmetics Llc
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Bhcosmetics Llc. The amendment corrected an inadvertent typographical error, clarifying that the 'BH' logo/label was not yet a registered trademark but rather had a pending application and long-standing user rights since 1986. The court allowed this correction, recognizing it would not alter the core relief sought (permanent injunction for passing off and infringement), and subsequently modified an earlier court order to reflect the accurate status of the mark.
Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd v.Laxmikanta Nayak
The court heard an interim application filed by Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd against Laxmikanta Nayak regarding passing off related to drinking water bottles. The parties suggested a settlement, but the court noted undertakings from the defendant regarding not possessing specific moulds or manufacturing depicted bottles.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought to amend their suit against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the petition under Clause XIV to combine the cause of action in passing off with that in infringement, and also permitted the Interim Application for amendments. Consequently, a further ad-interim order was granted regarding the passing off claim.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd v.Deepak Bhatia And Anr
The court heard an interim application and a leave petition filed by Godrej Consumer Products Ltd against Deepak Bhatia and Anr. The court granted the Leave Petition absolute and issued an additional ad-interim order concerning the cause of action in passing off.
M/S. Vipul v.Akshar Sweets And Namkeen
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning the non-granting of ad-interim injunction by a lower civil court in a trademark infringement dispute. The appellants, M/S. Vipul, argued that their prima facie case for trademark infringement was strong and continued prejudice was occurring due to the respondent's unauthorized use of a similar brand name after contract termination. Recognizing the urgency and the merits presented, the High Court disposed of the appeal while directing the trial court to expedite the decision on the injunction application within three months, ensuring the existing restraining order remains in effect until then.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd v.Annapurna Enterprises And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited. The court found that despite the termination of a franchise agreement, the respondents continued unlawfully using Lakme's brand name, logo, uniforms, and associated trade materials. Consequently, the court issued an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of all branded assets from the respondent's premises, preventing further unauthorized use.
Sahil City Sports v.Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd
Sahil City Sports filed a petition to set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed against it. The original award directed Sahil City Sports to pay damages and permanently restrain it from using the respondent's brand name 'Cricket Academy of Pathans'.
Lalit Babbar & anr. v.Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited v.Ram Dev Industries And Anr.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to initiate a civil suit against Ram Dev Industries & Anr. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were infringing upon their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court examined the petition, noting the combined cause of action for infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, allowing the petitioner to proceed with the suit.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
Starbucks Corporation v.Mr.Sunil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Starbucks Corporation against Defendant No. 5 following a joint settlement agreement. The settlement confirmed that Starbucks owns registered trademarks (STARBUCKS, FRAPPUCCINO) and copyrights in its logos and artistic works. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 37,500/-, the defendant agreed to permanent injunctions restraining them from infringing or misusing these marks and copyrights, including ceasing the sale of counterfeit products.
Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. v.Aniruddha Malpani
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. against Aniruddha Malpani, who was accused of defamation and trademark infringement via social media posts. The court found that the plaintiff faced irreparable loss due to the defendant's derogatory tweets regarding its brand 'WHITE HAT JR'. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to immediately cease posting such content and take down a list of specific offending tweets within 48 hours.
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.