India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 52 of 71 · 2,115 total
Balbir Singh & Company v.Mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a district court in New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the suit filed by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the plaint's averment that the defendant was clandestinely selling infringing goods within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. Consequently, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.Modi Hitech India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited against Modi Hitech India Ltd. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark VAC-PAC for welding electrodes, arguing it was an arbitrary and fanciful mark. However, the court found that the abbreviation 'VAC-PAC' derived from descriptive terms (Vacuum Packaging) could not be protected as a trademark. Citing settled law, the court ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of process of law and dismissed it with significant costs imposed on the plaintiff.
Ferrero Spa & Nr v.M/S Ruchi International & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Spa & Nr, finding that the defendants were infringing upon the well-known 'Ferrero Rocher' trademark and trade dress by selling look-alike chocolates under the brand 'Golden Passion.' Despite being aware of previous injunctions, Defendant No.2 continued to sell these infringing products. The Court awarded damages of ₹10.00 Lac against Defendant No.2, emphasizing that parties who evade court proceedings cannot benefit from their non-participation.
Maya Sharma v.Unique Law Publication House & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Maya Sharma, granting a permanent injunction against Unique Law Publication House & Ors for passing off. The court found that the defendants used deceptively similar trademarks ('UNIQUE' and 'UNIQUE 20') and copied the plaintiff's distinct trade dress on law books. Given the identical goods (law books) and channels of trade, the triple identity test was satisfied, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Manyavar Fashion Private Limited v.Manyavar Creations Private Limited
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed writ petitions filed by Manyavar Fashion Private Limited challenging a lower court's decision to issue only an emergent notice instead of granting immediate temporary injunctions. The petitioners sought protection for their registered trademark 'Manyavar' and copyrighted artistic work against alleged infringement and passing off by the defendants. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on all interim applications and pass appropriate orders promptly.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited. v.M/s.S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise in an infringement suit concerning the bottle design and label color scheme for gingelly oil. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably, leading the court to pass a compromise decree. Key terms included the first defendant voluntarily amending its label by enlarging the logo and altering other features, agreeing to destroy remaining unused labels within three months, and ceasing deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's product.
M/S. Epsilon Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the renewal of the trademark 'LOKPRIYA EASY NOTES.' The court held that despite procedural lapses, such as a delay in payment of surcharge, the Trademark Registry was entitled to grant the renewal because the application was filed within the statutory six-month grace period. This judgment emphasizes that strict adherence to procedure should not automatically invalidate a registration when the core requirements are met.
M.Ponnusamy (Sole Proprietor of Sasi Match Works) v.Latha Match Industries
M.Ponnusamy, representing Sasi Match Works, filed a suit against Latha Match Industries and others alleging infringement of his registered trademark 'GOPAL' and copyright in its artistic label. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendants allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'GOKUL'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.R.Shankar (Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food)
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against R.Shankar for passing off. Despite the defendant submitting an affidavit stating they had closed their business, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunctive relief under summary judgment proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade names and trading styles in the food service industry.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The plaintiff had initially sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles. However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'Thalappakatti' brand, M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas filed suit against Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food alleging passing off and seeking permanent injunction. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit entirely. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the litigation as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori. The suit, which was initially filed for passing off, resulted in a summary judgment decreeing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. This decision protects the established goodwill of the plaintiff's 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' brand against deceptive use by the defendant.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using similar trade marks and trading styles. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off their trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thiru A.Aboobacker
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thiru A.Aboobacker. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the 'Thalappakatti Biriyani' trade mark. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, the plaintiff withdrew the suit upon instruction from their client. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles related to biryani products. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal by the court.
M/s.Power Soaps Limited v.M/s. C M Detergent
M/s. Power Soaps Limited filed a suit against M/s. C M Detergent alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('DK' and 'POWER') and copyright violation concerning the use of deceptively similar marks on detergent wrappers. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounts of profits. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit, leading the court to dismiss the case.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark. However, before any substantive hearing on the merits of the infringement claim could take place, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
K.Ganesh Nadar / M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. / K.Ganesh Nadar
This Madras High Court judgment addresses two cross-suits concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and groundless threats related to the brand 'XTRA' in the FMCG sector. The court noted that the dispute was referred to mediation, which proved fruitful. Consequently, a common decree was passed based on a memo of compromise dated 17.02.2017. Under this agreement, the defendant committed to stopping the use of the infringing label and adopting an amended version moving forward.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited v.M/S.KTC Ventures
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise settlement between M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited and M/S.KTC Ventures regarding trademark infringement of 'LASSI HOUSE'. The parties agreed to drop the suit in exchange for specific terms, including a permanent injunction against passing off, payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the defendant, and mandatory changes to the defendant's branding (displaying 'KTC VENTURES' below 'Lassi House').
Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International
The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
Zenner International Gmbh & Co Kg And Anr v.Anand Zenner Company Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off concerning the trade mark 'Zenner'. The defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities.
M/S Mont Blanc Simplo Gmbh v.Gaurav Bhatia And Ors
In this contempt petition filed by Mont Blanc against Gaurav Bhatia and others, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues related to enforcement. The court upheld the maintainability of the contempt action despite the availability of execution remedies, citing Supreme Court precedent (Rama Narang). Furthermore, the court granted directions for a local commission, appointing several advocates to inspect premises, inventory counterfeit products sold on www.montblancwriting.com, and seize infringing goods in violation of prior injunctions.
Marina Food Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte injunction granted by the Trial Court against Marina Food Products Private Limited for using the trademark 'MARIE' in relation to biscuits. The court found that the initial order met the legal requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, as sufficient reasons were recorded regarding potential public confusion and harm. Furthermore, the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts was dismissed, confirming the trial court's authority to proceed with the trademark infringement suit.
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.