India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 51 of 71 · 2,115 total
Wockhardt Limited v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Supreme Court rejected Wockhardt Limited's appeal against a High Court Division Bench order that had granted an interim injunction based on passing off. The court found that the Division Bench correctly applied the triple test for passing off, establishing reputation and likelihood of confusion due to the minimal difference between the trade names. Despite arguments regarding acquiescence and prior conduct, the Supreme Court held that the balance of convenience favored the original judgment, thereby upholding the protection of Torrent's trademark.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP Suit against Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog alleging infringement of its distinctive WHEEL label and trade dress in the soap and detergent industry. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction.
Nakoda Plast Industries v.Amisha Plastic
Nakoda Plast Industries filed an IP suit against Amisha Plastic. The parties subsequently entered into Consent Terms, which were accepted by the Court.
Metro Shoes Limited v.V. Retail Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit (COMIP (L) No. 1073 of 2018) between Metro Shoes Limited and V. Retail Pvt.Ltd. after both parties submitted Consent Terms dated August 30, 2018. The court accepted these terms, leading to the disposal of both the Suit and the Notice of Motion.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using a similar trade mark. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit with the court's permission, leading to its dismissal.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Suchit Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Suchit Industries alleging infringement related to the soap brand 'Karan'. The defendant, Suchit Murkute, admitted manufacturing soaps under the brand but undertook not to use the splat logo in the future. The Court granted leave and decreed the suit based on these undertakings.
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the registered trademark 'CFA'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Although the court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's counsel failing to provide instructions.
The Society Of Certified Public Acountants v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Society of Certified Public Accountants filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CpA'. The court initially determined that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it involved intellectual property rights relating to trademarks. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default because the counsel on record for the plaintiff submitted that they had no instructions from the plaintiff.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited & Anr v.Droom Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over alleged disparagement between Cars24 (Plaintiffs) and Droom Technology (Defendants). Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's advertising campaign, which used similar catchphrases and visual elements, was designed to denigrate their brand. However, the court found that the defendant had sufficiently modified its advertisement and that the phrase 'DON’T BE A BAKRA' was an integral part of the defendant's registered trademark, not a disparaging reference to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to continue using the revised advertisement during the pendency of the suit.
M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private Limited v.Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.
Tata Sons Ltd & Anr v.Krishna Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting permanent injunctions and awarding substantial damages against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The suit centered on the unauthorized use of the well-known 'TATA' mark and associated domain names (www.tatafinserve.com). Given that the defendants evaded court proceedings, the Court emphasized the principle of corrective justice, holding them liable for punitive damages.
Condore Health Care Pvt.Ltd v.M/S Corem Pharma Pvt Ltd
This case involved a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a suit filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The petitioner argued that since the estimated value of their intangible trademark rights and reliefs sought was less than one crore rupees, the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the respondent contended that the market value mentioned in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exceeded the threshold. The High Court ultimately ruled that for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Act, it is the value of the reliefs estimated by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees that governs, not the higher market valuation cited elsewhere.
Turning Point & Anr. v.Turning Point Institute Private Ltd
This appeal addressed a dispute over the use of the mark 'TP TURNING POINT' in the educational sector. The appellant challenged an order that had restricted its use of the trademark, while the respondent claimed prior usage rights dating back to 1994. The court focused on setting aside the restrictive injunction granted against the appellant. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal regarding the interlocutory injunction, quashing the previous order and dismissing IA 16232/2015. However, the judgment noted that it was prima facie and interlocutory in nature, leaving the core merits of the trademark dispute unresolved.
Galderma S.A And Anr v.Medsea Healthcare Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a summary dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The court noted that while the plaintiffs had assigned their rights to the mark Q-MED, the timing and effect of this assignment were complex and required full trial evidence. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership changes and alleged concealment, the court ruled that the core issues could not be resolved summarily, allowing the main litigation to proceed.
M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan v.M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan, argued they had a strong prima facie case against the respondent for using a deceptively similar name ('Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House') for their restaurant business. While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the infringement claim itself, it intervened by directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings and pass necessary orders within 30 days.
Praneet Singh Davar v.L S Davar & Co & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous interim order that restricted the appellant's association with the respondent firm. While acknowledging the initial prohibition, the court clarified that the single judge's recorded 'prima facie' opinion regarding trademark rectification was not a final determination. The judgment directs the Registrar of Trademarks to proceed with the rectification proceedings based on merits, independent of the prior preliminary view.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the IPAB and High Court that had cancelled the 'NANDHINI' trademark registration held by M/S. Nandhini Deluxe. The dispute centered on whether the restaurant chain could use a deceptively similar mark to the established milk producer, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. The SC found that the appellant was a concurrent user who adopted the mark early enough and did not attempt to take unfair advantage of the respondent's goodwill, thereby restoring the registration.
G.Thirumoorthy v.Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering
G.Thirumoorthy filed a suit against Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering seeking permanent injunctions for infringing his registered trade mark 'KALYANI COVERING' and copyrighted artistic work, as well as passing off. The plaintiff sought to prevent the use of the deceptively similar mark 'KALYANI GOLD COVERING' on gold covering ornaments. However, during the proceedings, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit confirming the survival of the cause of action. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
The Gillette Company Llc v.Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, The Gillette Company Llc, to continue its existing interim injunction against the defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to their prior use of the mark compared to the defendants' recent adoption. This decision maintains the status quo while the main suit proceeds, though the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any losses incurred if they ultimately fail in the litigation.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Insecticides (India) Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'VICTOR 80' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'VICTOR', despite arguments regarding prior use and registration complexities. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior user rights can prevail over subsequent adoption, even if the latter is claimed in good faith.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Rohit Singh & Anr v.Apple Inc.
The Delhi High Court addressed the trade mark dispute between Rohit Singh and Apple Inc. concerning the term 'SPLITVIEW.' The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against Apple, alleging passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar feature name in its operating systems. While the court dismissed an interim injunction request, it proceeded to frame six detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the term is merely descriptive, who has prior usage rights, and if the plaintiffs' mark has acquired distinctiveness.
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Torrent Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a lower court order that vacated an interim injunction. The dispute centered on whether Comed Chemicals' brand name, 'CODROXIL', infringed upon Torrent's registered trademark, 'DROXYL'. Despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity, the court found no prima facie case for confusion, noting that both names originated from the generic drug 'Cefadroxil' and considering the nature of prescription-only pharmaceutical sales. The appeal was dismissed, directing the lower court to finalize the main suit promptly.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Perfect Agro
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement involving Hakimuddin Bhemat and Perfect Agro. The court heard submissions from various parties, including an added respondent (Respondent No. 2), who claimed they were merely acting as intermediaries based on requisitions from Defendant No. 1. To clarify the supply chain, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the identities of third-party suppliers. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking that they would cease using the plaintiff's trademark, while deadlines for other parties were extended.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.R-3 Organics Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim protective order in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against R-3 Organics Limited. HUL alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and selling detergent powder under 'PARAS STAIN FIGHTER' with labels deceptively similar to HUL's well-known trademark 'SURF EXCEL.' The court found a prima facie case of infringement regarding both the registered trade mark and the copyright in the distinctive getup and color scheme, leading to an order for inventory and seizure of infringing goods.
Somashekar P Patil (Appellant) v.D V G Patil (Respondent)
This Karnataka High Court appeal addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between two parties sharing the surname 'Patil'. The appellant sought to maintain an interim injunction against the respondent for using 'Patil Fragrances', claiming it infringed his registered mark. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the respondent's use of the name was bona fide. The judgment emphasized that Section 35 of the Trademarks Act protects a person's right to use their own surname in business, especially when their specific product brands are distinct.
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.