India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 71 · 2,115 total
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited v.Dsp Realty
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited filed an interim application alleging passing off against Dsp Realty, citing the use of the similar word 'DSP'. The Plaintiff, a major player in financial services, claimed substantial goodwill associated with its marks. Given that the Defendant failed to appear and provide a defense, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction. This order restricts the Defendant from using the mark containing 'DSP' in related financial sectors, protecting the Plaintiff's market reputation.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Captain Tractors Private Limited
Ashok Leyland Limited filed a suit alleging that Captain Tractors Private Limited was using the mark 'CAPTAIN' to pass off its goods. The dispute centered on whether the use of the mark constituted passing off, given that Ashok Leyland manufactures heavy vehicles while the respondent holds a registration for mini tractors.
Murickens Marketing System Llp v.Alex G. Muricken
The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal challenging a preliminary injunction granted against Alex G. Muricken for using names similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks, such as 'M.G and Murickens Group'. While acknowledging that the lower court had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on the similarity of marks and logos, the High Court recognized the appellant's claim regarding his long-standing use of the name 'Muricken Trading Company'. To balance competing interests and ensure substantial justice, the court remanded the matter back to the trial court, granting both parties a further opportunity to present evidence before deciding the injunction.
K.M.Ahmed Ansari / M/S Oriental Metals India Pvt Ltd v.K.S.Mohammed Ali / M/S Hero Plywoods and Boards
This appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged a lower court's dismissal of an interim injunction request concerning the trademark 'Oralium'. The appellants argued that the lower court's findings prejudiced the ongoing lawsuit. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the previous observations were merely tentative and did not preclude a fair trial. Given that the main suit was already scheduled for trial, the court deemed an interim injunction unnecessary and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
M/S Jai Hind Chemicals And Another v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Jai Hind Chemicals seeking an early decision on an application to rectify a trademark registration. The petitioners alleged that the respondent's registered trademark was similar to their trade name, necessitating rectification. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the Trademark Registry (Respondent No. 2) was actively processing the matter and not deliberately delaying it. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while urging the Registry to expedite its decision.
Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited v.Shailputri Media Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted interim protection to Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited in a passing off suit against Shailputri Media Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Republic Hindi,' coupled with similar font and color schemes, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'Republic TV.' Despite arguments regarding the generic nature of the word 'Republic,' the court prioritized the visual similarity and prior usage by the plaintiff, granting the requested injunction.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Maxwell Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing interim injunctions granted to Shalina Laboratories against Maxwell Life Science. The dispute centered on trademark infringement ('SUPER APETI' vs 'SUPER PEPTI'), copyright infringement related to packaging/trade dress, and passing-off concerning pharmaceutical preparations. By confirming these orders, the court maintained the status quo, ensuring the Plaintiff's rights were protected while the main commercial IP suit proceeds.
Tripti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust
The Gujarat High Court rejected a Civil Revision Application filed by Tripti Grover, upholding the dismissal of her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court clarified that an application under O.7 R.11 must be decided based solely on the averments and documents presented in the plaint, without considering external claims or pleas from related parties (like a daughter claiming rights). The judgment affirmed that multiple parties can have competing claims to a trademark, and one party's claim of prior use cannot be precluded by another claimant.
Alfa Ica (India) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Alfa Ica (India) Limited challenged the removal of its trademark registration from the register before The Registrar of Trade Marks in the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner argued that the ten-year renewal period should commence from November 2009, not March 2009, based on when they were communicated the certificate. Furthermore, they contended that the procedure for removal was flawed and unreasoned. The court granted interim relief while setting a date for further hearing.
Narendra Singh v.Ashendra Mishra
Narendra Singh filed an application seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against Ashendra Mishra regarding disputes arising from their partnership firm, M/s. Kautilya Academy. The applicant alleged misuse of the trade mark and siphoning of funds by the respondents. However, the court dismissed the application, holding that since there were serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and dispute over the very execution of the partnership deed, the matter was not fit for arbitration. The proper remedy was directed to be sought in a civil court.
Mr Imran Aman Sharieff (IAS Enterprises) v.M/s Sathwika Traders; M/s Sri Tarakarama Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court remanded an appeal concerning a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement. The appellant, Mr. Imran Aman Sharieff, sought to overturn the trial court's rejection of his application for a temporary injunction. Crucially, he introduced a new document—an order rejecting the respondents' trade mark registration application—at the appellate stage. The High Court ruled that since this new evidence was not available during the initial proceedings, it could only be used by directing the trial court to reconsider its decision based on the newly produced material.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Shyam Steel Industries Limited against Shyam Sel And Power Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were exploiting its reputation by using 'Shyam' on their TMT bar packaging, despite previous agreements to phase out the mark. However, the court noted the defendant's claim of honest adoption and the common nature of the word 'Shyam'. Consequently, the court declined to grant an immediate injunction but allowed the defendants time to file a detailed affidavit-in-opposition.
Tamil Nadu Liquor Manufacturers Welfare Association v.Dijit Kumar, Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., The Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh State Excise Department
The Tamil Nadu Liquor Manufacturers Welfare Association filed a civil suit against several defendants, including Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off of their trademarked logos such as “UB”, “SNJ”, “KALS”, “APPOLLO”, and “AM”. The plaintiffs sought damages and permanent injunctions to protect the goodwill associated with these marks. However, before the court could proceed further, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
S.Sudhakar / Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd. v.Priya Krishnakumar / Krishnakumar
This Madras High Court case addresses a complex dispute involving alleged infringement of registered trademarks and copyright in the food product sector. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks ('UDAYA MASALA' vs 'UDHAIYAM') and infringing on the artistic work/logo associated with their masala powders. While the suit sought various injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, the judgment provided a preliminary decree addressing these claims.
M/s.Rui Boutique v.Nidhi Arora
The Bombay High Court disposed of a commercial IP suit between Rui Boutique and Nidhi Arora based on mutually agreed-upon consent terms. The settlement allowed the defendant to change her existing trademark and trade name, which the plaintiff accepted. This resolution brought an end to the litigation concerning the intellectual property dispute.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
Dubai Islamic Bank v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of trademark registration for 'Dubai Islamic Bank - The Better Way To Bank'. The court found that the Senior Examiner had incorrectly applied a foreign judgment, failing to consider the composite nature of the mark (including the slogan) and established Indian legal principles. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner's arguments regarding existing registrations and global use are properly evaluated.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation related to edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Sun O Gold' on their product, mimicking the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and its associated trade dress. Although the suit initially sought various permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s. Murugan Metal Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and its associated artistic label. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum of compromise.
M/s.Aarumugaa Industries Partnership Firm v.Murugan Metal
M/s.Aarumugaa Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, surrender of infringing stocks, and accounting of profits due to deceptive similarity in branding. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and its associated copyrighted artistic label. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions to stop the infringing activities and demanded surrender of stocks and accounts of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s.Aarumgaa Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s. Aarumgaa Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and claims for damages related to passing off. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum of compromise.
Karthikeyan And Company v.M/s.New Brilliant Publications
Karthikeyan And Company filed a civil suit against M/s.New Brilliant Publications alleging both copyright infringement and passing off related to their Tamil notes. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, surrender of infringing copies, and damages for the unauthorized reproduction and use of their work. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved the court seeking permission to withdraw the suit due to changes in school syllabus and the defendant discontinuing active business.
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.M/S B&B Bake Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned an injunction restraining the appellant from using 'AMERICANA' for butter cookies. The court held that since 'AMERICANA' is a common dictionary word, its legal protectability is lesser, especially when it is not registered exclusively by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found no prima facie case of passing off because the products (cookies vs. burger buns) had distinct looks and packaging, making consumer confusion unlikely. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v.Nandi Food Products
M/s. Ambika Appalam Company filed a civil suit against Nandi Food Products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AMBIKA APPLAM' and copyright over the associated artistic work and trade dress. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of similar labels like 'AMBUJA APPALAM'. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Usha International Limited
In this trademark dispute, Shambhu Nath & Brothers successfully secured a favorable outcome against Usha International Limited. The respondent company voluntarily agreed to withdraw its application for the trademark 'TOOFAN' and provided an affidavit undertaking that it would neither use nor register the mark, or any similar mark, in the future. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit based on this binding commitment.
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s Anitha Marketing
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s Anitha Marketing alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'The Gold Drops' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt.Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts & Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Bluechip Amusements, granting a perpetual injunction against Crazy Concepts & Mazes. The dispute centered on the use of the terms 'HORROR HOUSE' and 'HOUSE OF HORRORS' in the amusement industry. Despite the defendant claiming prior rights and trademark registration, the court found that the plaintiff had established continuous business operations under these names since 2008. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's caution notice was unjustified and groundless, protecting the plaintiff's business interests.
N.Sathish Proprietor Om Tech Plastics v.Mr.C.Murali Kannan
N.Sathish filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr.C.Murali Kannan and others, initially alleging passing off related to plastic taps under the mark 'SIVA'. However, the judgment ultimately focused on copyright infringement claims regarding compilations. The court found that the plaintiff himself had copied material from earlier books, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited
In this interim application, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sought clarification regarding a previous court order concerning the use of the trademark 'CANDID'. The Bombay High Court addressed the request by formalizing an undertaking from Defendant No. 1. This ruling reinforces the immediate injunctive relief against the defendant, requiring them to cease importing or distributing goods under the disputed mark while the main litigation proceeds.
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.