India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 71 · 2,115 total
Karan Bajaj & Anr. v.Pradeep Poonia
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Karan Bajaj & Anr. against Pradeep Poonia, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, defamation, and unauthorized access to confidential business data. The court restrained the defendant from using similar marks like 'WhiteHat Sr' and prohibited him from hacking or circulating the plaintiffs' proprietary curriculum. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of multiple defamatory tweets and YouTube content posted by the respondent.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr. v.Mr.Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Anr. against Mr. Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. The plaintiffs, who hold extensive trademark rights for 'AFZAL' related to tobacco products, successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling similar goods under infringing marks like 'AFZAL BIDI No. 90.' This interim order protects the plaintiffs from irreparable loss while the main suit proceeds.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Park Pharmaceuticals
Glaxo Group Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement litigation against Park Pharmaceuticals through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, which required Park Pharmaceuticals to cease using deceptively similar marks like AQUAMENTIN and CETUM, acknowledge Glaxo's ownership of AUGMENTIN and CEFTUM, change product branding (to CLAVPARK and PARXETIL), destroy all infringing materials, and pay a settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000.
Sap Se v.Chetan Maini& Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Sap Se following an amicable settlement reached with Chetan Maini. The settlement agreement established that the defendant admitted ownership of the SAP trademark and logo. Key terms included a permanent injunction against using the mark for educational services, destruction of infringing materials, cessation of providing pirated software, and payment of INR 100,000 in costs.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v.Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Microsoft against Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated parties. The suit alleged that the defendants were using various domain names and impersonating Microsoft's authorized technical support staff to defraud customers. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence, noting that the defendants were infringing on Microsoft's registered trademarks, domain names, and copyrights while engaging in fraudulent activities.
Ms Gip Development Sarl v.Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Ms Gip Development Sarl, the owner of the 'Blaupunkt' trademark. The petitioner sought relief after terminating a license agreement with Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited due to non-payment of minimum license fees. Given that the respondent had not challenged the termination and failed to pay outstanding dues, the court ruled that the respondent lacked authority to use the mark, thereby restraining them from manufacturing or selling products under 'Blaupunkt' until the final disposal of the case.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L v.Ntc Industries Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L challenged Ntc Industries Limited regarding the use of its stylized 'Maypole' mark and packaging devices. During the proceedings on October 20, 2020, the court noted that the defendants would place advertisements showing the use of the 'Maypole' mark since 1994 on record. Furthermore, the defendants assured the court they would not use the specific roof device integral to the plaintiff’s trademark packaging, leading the matter to be listed for further hearing.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Floris Biotech LLP
The dispute involved Shalina Laboratories Private Limited challenging Floris Biotech LLP regarding the use of the trademark FLOCLAV. The parties reached a settlement, with defendants providing undertakings and submitting new labels that were deemed distinctly different from the plaintiffs' artwork/trade dress.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction favoring Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited in its trademark infringement suit against R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare. The dispute centered on the use of 'RAZO' by the plaintiff and 'RAPRAZO' by the defendant for the drug Rabeprazole. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, noting similarities in both the marks and the packaging design (blue and white color combination), leading to the grant of immediate injunctive relief.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Agribiotech Industries Limited (Abil)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd against Agribiotech Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its registered trademarks ('Officers Choice') and copyrighted trade dress associated with its IMFL products, specifically by using a deceptively similar label for its 'Chetak Whisky'. The court found that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, satisfying both the 'average intelligence' test and the 'triple identity' test. This interim order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation pending final disposal of the suit.
Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited v.Voltronic India Lubricants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, to appoint two more Local Commissioners in its ongoing infringement suit. The court recognized that new entities were using the registered trademark 'GULF PRIDE 4T PLUS' and employing deceptively similar trade dress for their engine oil products. This order allows the plaintiff to further investigate and seize infringing goods from newly identified parties, reinforcing the court's initial finding of widespread infringement.
Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
Astral Poly Technik Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee Through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Surendra Ayre & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Poly Technik against Astralglee, concerning the use of 'Astral' and 'Astralglee' in Class 3 goods. The court noted conflicting arguments regarding prior use, consumer confusion, and the scope of statutory rights conferred by registration. Given the complex factual matrix and competing legal precedents cited by both sides, the judge decided to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues.
Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Gepl) v.Gadham Ramesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (GEPL) against Gadham Ramesh regarding alleged trademark infringement. GEPL, claiming extensive use and registration of the 'GMR' mark across various sectors since 1978, sought protection against the defendant who was using a similar mark for a news channel on YouTube. The court found that GEPL had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable damage to its goodwill.
Ascot Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Prashant Sharma & Dikshant Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed an execution petition concerning a prior settlement where the judgment debtor had agreed to cease using the trademarks 'SAVOY SUITES' and 'SAVOY'. The court found that the judgment debtor was violating this undertaking by advertising their property in Mumbai under the same name, thereby leveraging the goodwill of the decree holder. Consequently, the Court issued strict directions compelling the defendant to immediately remove all references to the trademark from websites and third-party platforms, including major booking sites.
Sarla Holdings Private Limited v.Pathways School Gurugram Parents Association
Sarla Holdings Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the 'PATHWAYS' mark, sought to restrain a parents' association from using its trademark. The Delhi High Court mediated a settlement where the Defendants agreed to modify their association's name and remove all references to 'PATHWAYS' or 'PSG' from their communications and social media platforms. This order allows the Plaintiff to protect its brand identity while accommodating the community interest.
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.
This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Dream11 Team
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Dream11 Team, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendant was slavishly adopting identical trademarks and logos, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark or similar logos, and the court ordered the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend/block the infringing domain name www.dream11team.com.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
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.