India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 71 · 2,115 total
Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v.Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that struck off the registered BLUE-JAY trade mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court examined whether the removal was justified based on grounds like bad faith and prior user status.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Government Emarketplace v.Ankit Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction in favor of Government Emarketplace (GeM), a non-profit public procurement platform. The court directed domain registrar Godaddy.com to suspend specific infringing domain names and required social media intermediary Amazon to remove links hosting unauthorized webpages. This decisive order protects the GeM trademark against online infringement, setting a strong precedent for digital rights enforcement in India.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul v.Sunder Lal Goyal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad
Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA DISTILLERY AND ANR v.ASSOCIATED ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGES COMPANY
This appeal was filed by M/S Brahmaputra Distillery against an ad-interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Jorhat. The underlying commercial suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the product 'Raagi' and its packaging. However, the Gauhati High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on preliminary grounds, ruling that due to the specific mandate of Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Judge, Jorhat.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Ambush Cement Private Limited
Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.
Max India Investment Services Private Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing v.Mohan Singh Panwar
This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
Neon Laboratories Limited v.Vishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pidilite Industries Limited. The court condoned delays in filing replications for certain defendants. Crucially, while some parties proceeded toward trial, other defendants (18, 19, 20, and 21) were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, reflecting a judicial push towards alternative dispute resolution in complex IP litigation.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the appeal filed by Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court disposed of an application seeking exemption from filing certain documents, directing that certified copies of illegible materials be submitted within four weeks. The main appeal petition, challenging a prior order by the Trademark Registrar, was subsequently listed for further hearing on January 15, 2026.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
KT&G Corporation (Xx) v.YY
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.
Pachranga International Inc. v.Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries
Pachranga International Inc. filed an application alleging that Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries willfully disobeyed a prior court order dated 11.03.2025, which restrained the defendant from dealing in products bearing deceptive labels and infringing on the plaintiff's registered design, copyright, and trademarks. The plaintiff alleged continued violation through manufacturing and online sales using similar branding. In response, the defendant undertook to modify the trade dress of its label by changing the color and font, while also confirming the removal of specified URLs.
M/S. Dunlop India Limited (In Liqn.) v.Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted leave to M/S. Dunlop India Limited to continue its trademark rectification and cancellation proceedings against a company now in liquidation. The dispute centered on preventing the use of the 'DUNLOP' mark, including various prefixes and suffixes, for aircraft tyres by the liquidating entity. This decision allows the established market leader to pursue legal remedies to protect its brand integrity within the specialized aviation sector.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Greenland Trading Company
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Greenland Trading Company. The court recognized 'HIMALAYA' as a well-known mark due to its extensive global use since 1930. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the health and wellness sector, the court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar marks until further hearing.
Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan v.The Artists Planet & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the ongoing suit filed by Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan against The Artists Planet & Ors. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court directed the production and inspection of documents by the defendants, while also formally registering the plaint as a civil suit seeking protection against trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and misappropriation of personality rights.
Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. Irani v.The Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.
Kluster Llc & Anr. v.Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.
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.