India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 123 · 3,667 total
Shyam Sel And Power Limited v.Atibir Industries Company Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Shyam Sel And Power Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Atibir Industries Company Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'ISEL' on TMT bars constituted passing off, as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'SEL'. Relying on the principles of trade law and the lack of defense from the respondent, the court expedited the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari Centre v.M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
Mohd Shah Fahad Trading as Shah Enterprises v.Raghav Nathani
Mohd. Shah Fahad filed a suit against Raghav Nathani and others, alleging that Defendant No. 1 was infringing his registered trademark 'Classio' by using 'Classio Fashion' on e-commerce platforms, causing monetary loss and damage to goodwill. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's suit due to repeated willful and deliberate non-compliance with court orders and failure to prove a prima facie case.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications while continuing the main appeal challenging a trademark registration. The court condoned the appellant's delay in re-filing the appeal and allowed an application for exemption from producing certified copies of documents. Crucially, the court issued notice to the Respondent No. 2 regarding the challenge to their 'KALSI' mark registration, which was previously granted by the Registrar.
Omrf Pipes And Products v.Itarsi Pipe Sales & Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against pipe manufacturers who were allegedly passing off their products. The court held that while the appellants lacked formal trademark registration for the specific color combination, the similarity between the 'RIVERLINE' (appellant) and 'METROSTAR' (respondent) product colors and shapes had the potential to mislead an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, the High Court granted the interim injunction, emphasizing that courts should assess potential consumer confusion from the perspective of a common person.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Hartek India Pvt Ltd v.Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction in favor of Hartek India Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited. The court noted that the defendant's use of 'HARTEKDSS,' despite the added suffix, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'HARTEK.' This order serves as a crucial early victory for the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the confusingly similar name while the full suit proceeds.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals filed by the BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. against the rejection of its 'BSA' trademark applications by the Registrar of Trademarks. The dispute involved conflict with Tube Investments of India Ltd., which uses 'BSA' for bicycles and related products. Recognizing the potential for confusion but also the distinct nature of their businesses (software vs. cycles), the Court directed both parties to coordinate and delineate their respective goods and services. This step aims to allow both entities to secure trademark registration without future litigation.
Noumi Ip Pty Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Noumi IP Pty Ltd. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application 'MILKLAB,' which was deemed highly descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant argued that the mark relates to various milk-based products. Following arguments, the Court did not rule on the merits but instead sought instructions from the Appellant regarding potential remedies, such as amending the application into a logo/device mark or agreeing to a disclaimer concerning the word 'MILK'.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Jubilant Generics Limited And Anr
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a suit seeking an injunction against Jubilant Generics for allegedly infringing on its trademark 'RAZO' with the mark 'RAZOEASE'. Following the filing, the Defendant proactively acknowledged an inadvertent mistake and issued assurances to immediately cease all manufacture and sale under the disputed mark. The court accepted these undertakings, leading to the disposal of the injunction application and directing the parties to file consent terms for closure.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.
Britannia Industries Limited v.Amar Biscuit Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited against Amar Biscuit Private Limited. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'GOOD TIME' with a deceptively similar color combination and trade dress to Britannia's established 'GOOD DAY' butter cookies was likely to cause consumer confusion. Given the enormous goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's brand, the court ruled that immediate action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
M/S Natures Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
M/S Natures Magic World filed a writ petition seeking the Trademark Registry's direction to formally record an Assignment Deed dated February 17, 2016. The petitioner sought to establish ownership of the mark 'COLORESSENCE' (TM No. 1541613) following its assignment from M/s Nature Essence Pvt. Ltd. Despite the existence of the valid assignment deed, the recordal had not been given effect due to administrative confusion stemming from a subsequent name change of the original owner. The Court directed further hearings to resolve these procedural issues and ensure the assignment is duly recorded.
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd v.Sudershana Singh
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sudershana Singh alleging trademark infringement concerning wedding planning services. The Plaintiff holds a registered trademark 'BALAJEE EVENTZ' (No. 4175314) and claims the Defendant is infringing by using similar names like 'BALAJI EVENTS'. The Delhi High Court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from filing documents and instituting pre-litigation mediation, before formally registering the suit and directing the issuance of summons to the defendant.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Capital Tv And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tv Today Network Limited against Capital TV and others. The court found a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, noting that the defendants were imitating the plaintiff's distinctive program names and logos across various digital platforms. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar marks for news/current affairs programs and ordered to take down all infringing links online.
Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. v.C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of two petitions filed by Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. against C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. The challenge to the respondent's marks, which were under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, was rendered moot because the impugned trademarks had expired and subsequently been removed from the Register due to non-renewal. Consequently, the petitioner sought and received permission to withdraw the proceedings.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
ITC Limited Of Virginia House v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a previous Registrar's decision that had treated ITC's opposition to the mark 'LUCKY NINE' as abandoned due to delayed filing of evidence. The court held that since ITC had clearly stated its willingness to rely on the grounds of opposition within the prescribed period, the abandonment was unjustified. Following this ruling and citing precedent, the High Court ultimately cancelled the registration of 'LUCKY NINE', restoring ITC's rights.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
ITC Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Glaxo Group Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Dermazone Pharmaceuticals in a trademark infringement suit. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendant's mark, 'BECLOVATE,' is phonetically and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark, 'BETNOVATE.' Given the identical nature of the products (skin treatments) and strong market presence of Glaxo, the court granted immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion. The injunction restricts the manufacture and sale of the infringing product moving forward.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
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.