India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 71 · 2,115 total
Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.
In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta
In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
SAP SE v.ERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.
USV Private Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' on pharmaceutical labels. The plaintiff, USV Private Limited, alleged that the defendant's product used emphasized letters ('M', 'V', 'I') in a manner confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. In a significant development, the court accepted the defendant's willingness to modify the label and remove the disputed words, directing them to file an affidavit confirming this commitment.
GS1 India v.Barcodes Sl & Ors
GS1 India successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against a competitor operating barcode allocation websites. GS1, the sole licensed body in India for issuing standardized barcodes starting with '890', alleged that Defendant No. 1 was illegally allocating non-compliant and unverifiable codes, causing consumer deception. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of GS1, granting the injunction to protect its trademark rights and prevent irreparable harm to both itself and innocent customers.
fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd
FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
G4S Plc.(Formerly Known As Group 4 Securicor Plc) v.G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and the core claim of trademark infringement brought by G4S Plc against G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited. While granting various procedural exemptions, the court specifically dealt with an application seeking an ad interim injunction. The court found that before deciding on the merits of the infringement claim—where G4S alleged deceptive similarity using marks like 'G4EX' and 'G4 Excellence'—the defendant must be granted a full opportunity to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendant for a hearing scheduled in June 2020.
Vidya Mandir Classes Limited v.Swastik Classes Private Ltd &Others
In this intellectual property dispute concerning educational services, the Delhi High Court issued an order addressing interim relief. The defendants committed to ceasing the use of the plaintiff's registered trademark and returning existing course materials. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to refer the ongoing disputes to sole arbitration, while also agreeing to provide a list of affected students to determine their future enrollment.
Kamal Kishore Arora v.Central Public Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking detailed particulars of trade mark registration applications that were unlawfully accepted, withdrawn, and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against concerned Examiners. The CPIO initially denied providing certain information citing exemptions under the RTI Act. The Commission found the CPIO's reply misleading regarding complaints received by the organization and directed a revised response.
R.K. Patel And Company, Tobacco Processors v.Jaju Tobacco Company
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a District Court's order that granted a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the defendant's packaging was sufficiently similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress (yellow colour pouch/packet) to warrant injunctive relief. This ruling reinforces the importance of visual similarity and consumer perception in protecting trademarks within the tobacco industry.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
V Guard Industries Ltd. v.Taisong Chong And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd., preventing the defendants from transferring or registering the disputed domain name, www.vguard.com. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the defendant was acting as a cyber squatter to exploit the plaintiff's established trademark rights. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that administrative decisions under ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms are not binding adjudications and do not prevent civil litigation.
Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Emami Limited
This order sheet details an application filed by Emami Limited seeking the transfer of a title suit from the Additional District Judge to the Calcutta High Court. The original suit involved allegations of infringement concerning trademark, passing off, copyright, and design against Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. Citing Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the court allowed the transfer application.
Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.
Japan Tobacco v.D.Jhamnadas
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex dispute between Japan Tobacco and D.Jhamnadas, involving multiple IP claims. While the defendant relies on their registered trademark 'CAMEL,' the plaintiff asserts claims based on copyright and passing off. The court allowed the suit to proceed despite the pending Supreme Court appeal regarding the trademark registration, directing both parties to file detailed written submissions.
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Shemford Schools Private Limited & Anr. v.R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Shemford Schools Private Limited against R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'SHEMFORD' by the defendants, who were operating schools under similar names like 'SHAMFORD'. Given the virtual identity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion in the educational sector, the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss without immediate protection.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor Sridhar Velangi v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This Civil Writ Petition was filed by Essdee Industries against Esbee Electrotech LLP, challenging a previous court order. The impugned order allowed the respondent/plaintiff to conditionally withdraw their composite suit, granting them the liberty to file two separate suits concerning alleged trademark and design infringement of their rights. The Bombay High Court proceeded with issuing notice in this appeal.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. And 2 Others v.Prashant Goenka And 11 Others
The Bombay High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging breach of an interim order concerning the use of 'INDIAN EXPRESS' trademarks and Ramnath Goenka's copyrighted photographs. After the respondents unconditionally apologized for the inadvertent breaches, the court directed digital platforms (YouTube and Facebook) to remove specified infringing URLs. The primary contempt petition was thus disposed of, while a separate application seeking rejection of the plaint against one defendant was remanded for further hearing.
Unilever Plc. v.Deepak Talreja
The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.
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.