India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 53 of 71 · 2,115 total
M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S G D Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd challenging a single judge's order. The appellant had sought to reject the original suit for permanent injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked a registered trademark in Class 30, making the infringement claim unsustainable. The court upheld the initial decision, noting that when adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule II CPC (rejection of plaint), the court must rely solely on the averments made in the plaint.
Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.P.T.I Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Godfrey Phillips India Limited against P.T.I Private Limited & Ors., finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action for trademark infringement or passing off. The court specifically noted that an owner of a composite registered label cannot claim infringement based solely on the use of a minor part (like a color scheme) by a competitor, citing Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the judgment cautioned against using IP law to throttle competition and create monopolies.
Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v.Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. concerning its trademark registration in Class 42 against Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. The dispute centered on who was the prior user of the 'Royal Orchid' mark. Despite arguments regarding previous litigation, the Court found that the High Court's detailed consideration of evidence—which concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated first use and that confusion was possible due to similarity—was reasonable and justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.
M/s.Aloha India v.Brilliant Academy
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit against Brilliant Academy alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'ALOHA' and copyright violation concerning its education books and study materials. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages for passing off, and surrender of infringing stock. Although the suit qualified to be heard by the Commercial Division under relevant statutes, the plaintiff subsequently requested withdrawal.
Mutha Brothers & Ors v.Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'RADIUM' and 'SPEED RADIUM'. The petitioners successfully established a strong prima facie case, demonstrating that the respondents were imitating their unique artistic get-up, color combination, and layout on packaging. Consequently, the court granted an interim order, appointing a Special Officer to inventory the infringing products while the main litigation proceeds.
Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Neelkanth Minechem
This judgment addresses a jurisdictional challenge raised by petitioners against a trademark infringement suit filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The core dispute was whether the case qualified as a 'commercial dispute' exclusively triable by a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court ruled that since there was no evidence in the plaint suggesting the subject matter value exceeded the statutory threshold of one crore rupees, the suit remained maintainable before the District Court.
M/S Adiga Sweets v.M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court upheld a prior injunction decree in favor of M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd against M/S Adiga Sweets. The core issue was whether the use of 'ADIGA'S SWEETS' by the appellant constituted passing off against the respondent, who had established goodwill using variations of 'ADIGA'S' since 1993. The court found that due to the common food industry context and phonetic similarity, an average consumer is likely to confuse the two businesses, thus affirming the finding of passing off.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
A.Rajendran v.Thenandal Studios Limited
The appeal was filed by A.Rajendran against an order dismissing his application for injunction, which sought to restrain respondents from using the title 'Mersal' (an adopted version of 'Merrasalaitan'). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the subject title had acquired any goodwill or reputation.
Abp News Network Private Limited & Anr v.Pobi Infrastructure Private Limited & ...
The Calcutta High Court decreed a suit filed by ABP News Network against Pobi Infrastructure, resolving the dispute through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The defendants acknowledged that the mark "Shera Bangali" is a well-known trademark of the plaintiffs and committed not to use it for their upcoming or future film ventures. This judgment underscores the importance of pre-litigation settlements in IP disputes involving brand reputation.
Rajat Agarwal & Anr. v.Quadrific Media Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This case involves a dispute over the intellectual property assets, specifically the trademark 'Spartanpoker', its logo, and the domain name 'Spartanpoker.com'. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court concerning these assets, while the defendants subsequently filed a related suit (TS No. 5 of 2017) in the District Judge's court. To prevent conflicting judgments and streamline the legal process, the Calcutta High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer the Alipore suit to be heard alongside the original High Court proceedings.
Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Rishabh Lohia & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd in a passing off suit against Rishabh Lohia & Anr. The court found that the defendants dishonestly adopted the trade name 'Optimus' for pharmaceutical products, causing confusion in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions and awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- due to the defendant's evasion of court proceedings.
Dura Roof Private Limited v.Dyna Roof Private Limited
The Gauhati High Court allowed appeals filed by Dura Roof Private Limited, setting aside temporary injunction orders previously granted to Dyna Roof Private Limited. The court found that despite claims of similarity, the marks 'Dura Roof' and 'Dura Lume' were phonetically and visually dissimilar enough from 'Dyna Roof' and 'Dyna Lume' that there was no likelihood of public confusion. Consequently, the court held that a prima facie case for trademark infringement was absent, allowing the original title suits to proceed on their merits.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Www.Timeseducation.Co & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute Of Management, to implead Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's) as a necessary party in its trademark infringement suit concerning the domain name 'timeseducation.co'. The court found that the proposed defendant had an admitted association with the impugned domain via a telephone number linked to them, making their presence essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently deleted two original defendants from the array of parties.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. against an order that vacated its ex-parte injunction. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'VOGUE' by the appellant and 'LINEN VOGUE' by the respondent in relation to magazines versus fabrics/apparel. The court held that the respondent's catalogues, which merely advertised their goods, did not constitute a commercial act of publishing for sale, thus finding no merit in the claim of infringement or passing off.
P.Maheswari (Propx. Venu Biriyani Hotel) v.Dindigul Venuu Biriyani
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by P.Maheswari against Dindigul Venuu Biriyani regarding the use of deceptively similar trade names for biryani services. Although the initial claim sought permanent injunction and damages, the court ultimately decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) signed between the parties. This resolution allowed both parties to settle their dispute outside of a full trial.
Kela Handloom & Co. v.Susanta Debnath
Kela Handloom & Co. filed a suit against Susanta Debnath and others, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'ASMA' and associated artistic work in textile goods like lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise reached between the parties.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited v.Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, Delhi (Gurgaon)
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited challenged demands for service tax levied on royalty payments made to M/s. Showa Corporation, Japan, concerning the transfer of technical know-how and IP rights (Patent, Utility model, Brand Service, Design, Trademark). The Tribunal ruled that since the relevant trademarks and designs were not registered in India under Indian law at the time, the services did not fall under IPR service as defined by the Finance Act, 1994. Furthermore, since the agreement was executed before the levy came into force, the demand was unsustainable.
hindustan unilever limited v.shree mehta chemicals indore pvt ltd
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUFL) sued Shree Mehta Chemicals (Indore) Pvt Ltd for infringement of its registered trademark 'SURF/SURF EXCEL' and copyright in the artwork on its detergent powder packaging, alleging that Shree Mehta’s ‘SANAN’ detergent packaging used a deceptively similar colour scheme, getup, and artwork. HUFL claimed significant sales and reputation associated with the SURF EXCEL brand.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Guddu
Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully sought interim protection against Guddu, alleging that the respondent was manufacturing and selling soaps under the brand 'New Liberty' with trade designs, graphics, and color schemes deceptively similar to Lifebuoy. The court recognized the distinctive 'trade dress' of Lifebuoy in the competitive FMCG sector. Given the high potential for consumer confusion among unwary buyers, the Calcutta High Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the infringing goods and granted an interim injunction to preserve the petitioner's market reputation.
AVMH Corporation v.Subu Trade Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plea to dismiss a trademark suit. The respondent sought injunctions regarding their 'SACHA MOTI' trademark for food products, while the petitioners argued the suit should be dismissed due to parallel proceedings in the Delhi High Court and before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The High Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no illegality in allowing the suit to proceed.
Paramount Surgimed Limited v.Paramount Bed India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier ex-parte injunction granted in favor of Paramount Surgimed Limited. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the 'PARAMOUNT' mark since 2009 and had not adequately demonstrated its use in the hospital bed sector. Given the established business operations of the defendants, the balance of convenience lay in their favor, allowing them to continue their trade.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
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.