India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 49 of 125 · 3,740 total
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
Jupiter Drugs Partnership Concern v.Mrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Robin Sebastian (CJ Buildware) v.Shyjumon Joseph
The Kerala High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of CJ Buildware against Shyjumon Joseph. The court found that despite a prior contractual agreement, the respondent began using a trademark ('SJ BUILDWARE') that was phonetically and visually deceptive to the plaintiff's registered mark ('CJ BUILDWARE'). Given the established reputation of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience, the court deemed it appropriate to restrain the defendant from continued use pending further proceedings.
Sundaram Industries Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Sundaram Industries Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration for the word mark TRISTAR. The court found that despite arguments regarding differences in goods, the appellant's proposed mark was near identical to an earlier registered mark (TM No. 308929). Given that both marks were applied to similar goods—solid industrial tyres and tyres/tubes for motor land vehicles—the court concluded there would be a likelihood of confusion or association among the public, thereby upholding the refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside an administrative order that had removed a registered trademark (No. 1249884) from the register. The appellant successfully argued that the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically by not issuing the required notice (Form O-3) to the proprietor before taking action. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant to take necessary steps for the renewal of their trademark.
Harsh Vardhan v.Alna Biotech Pvt Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Harsh Vardhan seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to forthwith cancel the 'GLAMROOT' mark, which was registered in favor of Respondent 1 (Alna Biotech Pvt Limited). This decision effectively removed the disputed mark from the registry.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
Cresset Capital Management Llc & Anr. v.Registrant Of Www.Cressetcapital.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Cresset Capital Management LLC against domain name registrants. The court recognized the global goodwill associated with the 'Cresset' mark, despite its lack of Indian registration, finding that several registered domains were being used to commit fraud and misrepresent the Plaintiffs' business. Consequently, the Court directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing websites, while also directing law enforcement to commence action against the perpetrators.
N.C.Nanu v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by N.C.Nanu, whose trademark application for 'PAYYOLI MIXTURE' was deemed abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the petitioner had complied with Section 21(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as the initial counter statement was filed within the stipulated two-month period from receiving the notice of opposition. The High Court quashed the abandonment order and directed the Registry to consider the application on its merits.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) v.Sharp Tools; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha against a trademark registration order. The core issue was whether to set aside the Deputy Registrar's decision that rejected Sharp's opposition to the mark 'SHARP.' However, the court found the appeal moot because the challenged trademark (No. 1185252) had lapsed and not been renewed since March 2013. Consequently, the legal challenge became infructuous.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Fast Cure Pharma And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration, declaring the mark 'RAZOFAST' illegal. The court found that 'RAZOFAST' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark 'RAZO', which is used for the pharmaceutical compound Rabeprazole. Consequently, the registration of 'RAZOFAST' was cancelled and removed from the register.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust v.Samina Mahmood
The Madras High Court dismissed four original petitions filed by Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust seeking the revocation of several 'Headstart' trademark applications. The dismissal was based on a prior decree from Bengaluru, which included a memorandum of compromise. Under this agreement, the petitioner had undertaken not to infringe upon or pass off educational services using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. Given this binding commitment, the court found that the petitioner could no longer prosecute the revocation petitions.
World Animal Protection v.The Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Examiner's rejection of World Animal Protection's device mark application. Although the court acknowledged that the individual words are descriptive, it ruled that when considered as a composite device mark, the registration was sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection. The appeal was allowed, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over the constituent words.
Frenway Products Inc. v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned a refusal of trademark registration granted by the Assistant Registrar. Frenway Products Inc., seeking to register a device mark for handtools, challenged the objections raised under Sections 9 (lack of distinctiveness) and 11 (likelihood of confusion). The court found the Section 9 objection untenable, noting the mark was not generic or descriptive. Furthermore, it noted that the cited conflicting mark had lapsed, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Insta Rooms Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection of Insta Rooms Private Limited's device mark application. The Examiner had objected that the mark was highly descriptive of temporary accommodation services. However, the court ruled that when considered as a whole—including the visual elements (bed and lamp) alongside the words 'Insta Rooms Book Instantly'—the mark possesses sufficient distinctiveness to overcome the Section 9 objections. The registration was allowed, though with a caveat limiting the appellant's exclusive rights over the individual words 'insta' or 'rooms'.
Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Team-Venture; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking to remove or rectify the trade mark 'SHEAR MAGIC UNISEX SALON AND SPA' from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple notices being served. This ruling highlights the strict procedural requirements in trademark litigation.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners) v.Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited
The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the registration of the mark “NANO CUR”. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant could not be served notice due to having vacated the specified office address.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Sri.Hitesh Chouhan, Proprietor M/s.Metro Marketing v.Sri.Ganapathlal, Proprietor M/s.Jaya Stationery
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'LEO' registered by Sri.Ganapathlal. The court found that the respondent adopted a near-identical mark for identical goods (rubber bands), and this adoption was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, especially given prior undertakings to change the branding. Consequently, the registration certificate was cancelled, maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
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.