India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 71 · 2,115 total
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Burdwan Soap Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Burdwan Soap Works alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to their detergent powder products. The court granted an interim order, reinforcing existing reliefs and issuing further restraints on the Defendant's business practices.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited v.Rupam Garments
The plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit against the defendant regarding passing off. The court directed the defendant to appear in person along with invoices, and while the defendant failed to appear, the court reiterated that the earlier ad-interim order would continue.
Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopaks Pik-N-Pay
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. against Roopaks Pik-N-Pay regarding alleged trademark infringement of 'ROOPAK'. While the plaintiffs sought a complete restraint, the court acknowledged the defendants' long-standing use of the mark since 1994 and noted unexplained delay in filing the suit (2017). Consequently, instead of granting an outright injunction, the Court ordered the defendants to cease using variants of the mark while simultaneously mandating them to file detailed accounts from 1993-94 to facilitate a fair trial.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited filed a suit against Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr. alleging infringement of trademark and passing off. The Calcutta High Court accepted the plaint, noting that no leave was required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. Given concerns about potential concealment of infringing products, the court dispensed with mediation provisions.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited v.Rupam Garments
The petitioner filed a Notice of Motion against the respondent in the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court. The court granted leave and directed the defendant to appear on a specific date along with relevant invoices, while maintaining the existing interim protection.
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Deepika File Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Deepika File Products for passing off the plaintiff's trade name 'FILEX'. The court found that despite the defendant's arguments regarding prior use or lack of registration, the extensive and long-standing use of 'FILEX' by the plaintiff had established significant goodwill and reputation in the stationery market. This judgment underscores the protection afforded to unregistered marks when passing off is involved.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court passed an order granting leave to the petitioner and issuing a temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the respondent from dealing in medicinal preparations bearing the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar mark, preventing passing off of the plaintiff's brand 'MONTEK'.
M/s.Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg v.Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg filed a civil suit against Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trade marks, including 'GEDORE', and copyright violation concerning the 'GEDORE Device' artistic works. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off and IP infringement. However, before the final judgment, both parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. concerning trademark infringement related to pharmaceutical preparations. The Bombay High Court granted leave and issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar marks.
Luxembourg Brands S.A.R.L & Anr. v.G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an extension of five weeks to the Local Commissioner in a trademark infringement dispute involving the brand TERAMAX. The court noted that while the defendant had finally filed an affidavit regarding net revenue, it lacked necessary annexures detailing the accounts workings. Given these procedural delays and ongoing verification processes, the court allowed more time for the commissioner to submit a comprehensive report on the defendant's sales.
Hotel Panchavati & Anr. v.Hotel Panchvati & Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Hotel Panchavati & Anr. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' well-known reputation and goodwill associated with the 'PANCHAVATI' marks in the hospitality sector. Finding that the Defendants were using deceptively similar marks and domain names, the Court issued an injunction restraining their continued use of these marks and directed them to remove all infringing materials within three days.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited against Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court observed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'PULSER' and identical trade dress for candies, which infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark PULSE and its associated artistic packaging. This protective order prevents the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the infringing marks until further orders.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyright in artistic packaging/trade dress for detergents, along with passing off. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from reproducing or selling infringing goods and ordered the payment of a fine.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyright in artistic packaging and passing off related to its detergents. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from reproducing or dealing in similar goods, and mandated the payment of a fine.
Unilever Plc. v.Lucky Products
Unilever Plc. filed a notice of motion seeking an interim order against Lucky Products for allegedly using a pirated trade dress and trademarks deceptively similar to VASELINE in their petroleum jelly products. The Bombay High Court granted the leave petition and issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling such goods.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress and misuse of the 'Sunlight' trade mark in detergent products. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright and passing off, while also imposing a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Micro Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against Micro Paints alleging that the defendant was using pirated trade dress and marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's label marks (TRUCARE) and trade dress (ULTRA DECO). The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods under such deceptive marks.
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.Konkan Agro Marine Industries Private Limited
The petitioner filed a commercial IP suit against the respondent regarding the use of bottles bearing a registered mark. The court recalled an ex-parte order after the plaintiff failed to disclose a prior cease and desist notice. Subsequently, ad-interim relief was granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors v.Darshanam Life Space Private Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse interim order that had vacated the appellants' ex-parte injunction, which was related to trademark infringement concerning 'Central Park'. The court acknowledged the strong goodwill and reputation of the appellant's registered mark. While keeping the core dispute in abeyance, the court granted permission for the respondent to sell remaining unsold flats, balancing the need to protect IP rights with commercial realities.
Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. v.Dinender Jain & Others
In this interim order, the Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Oriflame against various defendants, including Amazon. The core dispute centered on whether Direct Selling Entities (DSEs) like Oriflame must obtain prior written consent before their products are sold on e-commerce platforms. While Amazon argued it was merely an intermediary exempt from liability under the IT Act, the Court issued specific interim directions. These orders mandate Amazon to identify sellers offering Oriflame's products and verify if they have obtained proper consent; listings without consent must be removed within strict timelines.
Akhil Bhatia & Anr. v.Shri Krishan Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the dispute concerning the trademark 'ELLWIN'. Recognizing that settlement was not immediately possible, the court directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding relevant assets and businesses. Crucially, the Registrar of Trademarks was instructed not to act on a specific assignment deed dated July 18, 2018, thereby keeping proceedings related to that transfer stayed.
Narayanlal Hemaji Mewada And Anr v.Rishabh Enterprise And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants. The court restrained the defendants from using any label or domain name containing 'MARSHAL GRIP' or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered marks (MARSHAL/MARSHAL GRIP). Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to pay costs and destroy the wrappers of the impugned goods.
Marico Limited v.Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited against Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off regarding the plaintiff's 'SAFFOLA Oats' brand. Given that the defendants were allegedly selling oats with packaging deceptively similar to SAFFOLA, the court restrained them from manufacturing or distributing the competing product, 'NUTRI DELITE OATS,' until further orders.
Elder Projects Ltd. v.Elder Labs Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Elder' on pharmaceutical products. The court heard statements from key executives of both parties, including those from Elder Projects Ltd. and Elder Labs Limited. While the plaintiff raised claims regarding unauthorized use, the court noted that it was of a prima facie view that the plaintiff had made false claims, reserving judgment on this matter for future hearings.
Amit Bansal v.Amit Garg & Anr
The Delhi High Court stayed an earlier injunction order passed by the ADJ in a trademark dispute involving 'ATHERMAL'. The appeal challenged the lower court's decision, which had favored the plaintiff (Amit Garg) based on registration and alleged prior use since 2003. However, the High Court noted serious procedural flaws, including the inclusion of an unverified party (Plaintiff No. 2), and directed further examination of the trial record.
H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v.Hnm Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) against Hnm Traders. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants' adoption of 'HnM' was nearly identical to H&M's distinctive style and color schemes. This order prevents the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or applying for registration until further orders.
Industrial Tools And Hardware v.Naman Arora and Sandeep Garg
The plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the defendants infringed their registered trademark and manufactured identical products using the plaintiff's marks. The court observed the infringement and granted an interim order restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods bearing deceptively similar marks.
Trans Union Cibil Ltd. v.Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim order favoring Trans Union Cibil Ltd. against Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was infringing the 'CIBIL' trademark, misrepresenting itself as connected with CIBIL to the public, and collecting money from victims. Consequently, the injunction prevents the defendant from using or enabling others to use the protected trademarks in relation to credit scores and reports until the final disposal of the suit.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
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.