India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 71 · 2,115 total
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited v.S. R. Life Science And Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, filed a Notice of Motion seeking various reliefs against the defendant, Chandrakant Gholap. The court granted leave to the Plaintiff and further granted prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion, which sought an injunction against the Defendant for using counterfeit PARACHUTE trade marks or trade dress in relation to edible oil preparations and other FMCG goods.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
Marico Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave and an interim injunction against Chandrakant Gholap regarding the use of the PARACHUTE trade mark and trade dress. The Court granted the leave sought by the Plaintiff and further granted the prayer for an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or distributing packaging materials bearing the infringing trademark/trade dress.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
M/s.Radiant Cash Management Services v.All in Pictures
M/s. Radiant Cash Management Services filed a suit against All in Pictures alleging infringement of its exclusive trademark, 'Radiant,' related to the screening of the film 'GORRILA.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages for the alleged misuse of the mark. However, during the hearing, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled out of court.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
M/s.Cool Planet (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/s.Cool Planet
This case involved M/s. Cool Planet (Pvt) Ltd. filing a civil suit against various entities, including another entity named M/s. Cool Planet and Paramount Apparels and Exports. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of the mark 'Cool Planet', alleging infringement of both trade marks and copyright, as well as passing off. Despite the initial claims for damages and delivery up of materials, the parties ultimately reached a settlement.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. v.Varuna Associates
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. filed a civil suit against Varuna Associates alleging copyright and trademark infringement. The suit claimed that the defendant was using INDAQUA labels, which substantially reproduced the plaintiff's Rmans label in identical color scheme and layout. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Popular Trading Company
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Popular Trading Company alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation concerning their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Gold Drops' in relation to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Gold Winner'. Although the initial suit sought various injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo.
Capt. (Retd) Shibu Issac & Force 1 Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Force 1 Security Services
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement between the plaintiffs (owners of 'FORCE 1') and the defendant ('Force 1 Security Services'). The suit, originally filed for trademark infringement and passing off, was resolved through a Memorandum of Compromise. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant agreed to cease using the infringing marks, withdraw their pending trademark application, and refrain from challenging the plaintiffs' rights in the future. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these mutually agreed-upon terms.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd v.Narasu's Sarathy Industries
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.RVS Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.RVS Traders alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright, specifically concerning the use of the deceptively similar mark 'SPS Gold' on edible oil products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and directions for destruction of infringing materials. However, before the final judgment was passed, both parties entered into a Compromise Memo to settle all disputes.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.SP Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.SP Traders alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Shree Gold' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Although the initial claims involved trademark, passing-off, and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/s.Micro-Pak Ltd. v.Radhika Sales
M/s. Micro-Pak Ltd filed a civil suit against Radhika Sales alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Micro-pak' and associated copyright, particularly concerning anti-microbial stickers and moisture management products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of counterfeit goods, and damages for passing off. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo, leading to the court decreeing the suit in terms of this settlement.
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited v.M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited filed a suit against M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries alleging infringement of its well-known trademark, "O TVS TYRES," and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and account of profits. However, the court ultimately decreed the suit only for the specific prayers related to permanent injunctions after receiving an undertaking from the defendants.
Corum Hospitality And Another v.Hotel Varuna And 3 Others
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed procedural matters in a commercial IP suit involving trademark disputes between Corum Hospitality and Hotel Varuna. The court accepted undertakings regarding the filing of Vakalatnamas and set out timelines for addressing office objections to the notice of motion. Furthermore, an intervener sought permission to join the proceedings concerning alleged infringement of the 'Bar Stock Exchange' trademark, which was granted procedural allowance.
Royal Dryfruit Range v.Royal Taste Dry Fruits
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit involving Royal Dryfruit Range versus Royal Taste Dry Fruits. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendant, Royal Taste Dry Fruits, to remove the disputed mark 'ROYAL' from its signage and packaging, as well as withdraw its trademark application. A short extension was granted for compliance, effectively settling the immediate dispute through mutual agreement and judicial acceptance of the undertakings.
M/S Ever Bake v.M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.
M/s. Hotel Sealord v.M/s.Hotel New Sealord
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s. Hotel Sealord against M/s. Hotel New Sealord, alleging passing off and trademark infringement based on similar names. Although the plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages, the court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement prior to judgment. Consequently, the Civil Suit was decreed strictly according to the terms outlined in the Memo of Compromise signed by both parties.
Facebook Inc. v.Surinder Malik & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.
A.Kumar v.Radhakrishnan
A.Kumar filed a civil suit against Radhakrishnan and two other companies, M/s.Ashcom and German Refilling Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of their trademarks and passing off concerning inkjet, laser, and toner cartridges. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits. However, on the date of hearing, no counsel appeared for A.Kumar, leading the Madras High Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, V. Dhadapani, and S. Ravichandran
This civil suit was filed by S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, alleging infringement of the registered trademark "UDHAIYAM" and copyright violation concerning their oil products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages for passing off. However, before a final judgment on merits, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Kishan Green Field Agritech & Ors.
In this trademark and copyright infringement suit, the defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over the case. The Calcutta High Court did not immediately rule on the jurisdictional challenge but instead granted the plaintiff an opportunity to file a detailed affidavit in opposition. Furthermore, the court directed the defendants to disclose all sales accounts related to the 'DOUBLE PAAN' trademark from the date of filing, ensuring that the core issues of infringement and jurisdiction would be addressed thoroughly.
Bytedance Ltd. v.Don Cinema
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed an urgent application filed by Bytedance Ltd., the registered proprietor of the 'Tiktok' trademark, against Don Cinema. The dispute arose from an alleged announcement by the defendant regarding a web series titled 'Tiktok House.' After the defendant provided an undertaking to the court denying any such release, the plaintiff withdrew its request for ad-interim relief. The court subsequently set out procedural directions for further pleadings and hearing.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders
The plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their registered mark 'UDHAIYAM' used for food products like Gingelly Oil. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off. However, during the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel requested permission to withdraw the suit while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case should future infringement occur.
asian paints limited v.jain paints
Asian Paints Limited sued Jain Paints for trademark infringement concerning the marks 'APEX', 'GOLD DRY APEX', and 'AZPER' used on exterior emulsion paints (Class 02). Defendant No. 2 admitted in their written statement that a stay would not significantly impact them as they were not manufacturing, marketing, or selling the infringing goods.
Vinay Aggarwal v.Rims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.
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.