India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 54 of 123 · 3,667 total
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
M/S S. S. Hospitality v.M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd
This revision petition challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court regarding a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd against M/S S. S. Hospitality. The petitioner argued that since the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and the respondent had subordinate offices there, the suit should have been filed in Chandigarh. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent-plaintiff did not possess a subordinate office in Chandigarh, thus validating the original court's decision to allow the suit to proceed in Delhi.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries seeking permission to cancel the trademarks 'ZEST' and 'FERIZEST' registered by Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court dismissed the request concerning 'ZEST', citing principles of acquiescence, noting that the plaintiff had previously relied on similar marks containing 'ZEST'. However, the court issued notice for the cancellation petition regarding 'FERIZEST', allowing the litigation to proceed on that mark.
Bennett Coleman And Companylimited v.E Entertainment Television Llc And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinders in trademark cancellation proceedings. The court allowed the delays, allowing the petitioner to file their responses. Furthermore, the court framed specific issues regarding the potential cancellation of two distinct trademarks (No. 2340887 and No. 1252812) and set a clear schedule for the parties to proceed with evidence and trial.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Knitpro International v.Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Knitpro International against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of a trademark application for a pattern on a knitting needle. The court found that the subject mark was inherently distinctive, capable of distinguishing goods, and that the objections raised under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act were untenable. Consequently, the court set aside the previous refusal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Rspl Limited v.Agarwal Home Products & Anr.
Rspl Limited challenged the registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' by Agarwal Home Products, arguing it was deceptively similar to their well-known brand 'GHADI'. The Delhi High Court examined the phonetic and visual similarities between the two marks. Ultimately, the court found that despite both words being related to time/clocks in Hindi, there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion for cancellation under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the petition seeking revocation was dismissed.
Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pankaj Kumar Patel
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Dr.Reddy S Laboratories Ltd v.Ancalima Lifesciences Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to frame additional issues and consolidate a related trademark rectification petition into the ongoing passing off suit. The court noted that since the challenge to the defendant's trademark validity was already pending in a separate rectification case, there was no need to frame new issues in the current suit. Consequently, the court ordered the consolidation of the rectification petition with the present suit to ensure unified trial proceedings before the Joint Registrar.
3M Deutschland Gmbh v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed 3M Deutschland Gmbh's appeal against the Senior Examiner's refusal to register its mark 'PENTA'. Although the court noted that several cited marks were phonetically similar, it ultimately favored the appellant due to evidence of the mark's long-standing use and established reputation in India since 2004. The registration application was directed to be processed, though any subsequent opposition would be decided on its own merits.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mahendra Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd against Mahendra Singh and Anr regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiff, owner of the 'BIZFER' marks for pharmaceutical products, successfully argued that the Defendants' use of the similar mark 'VIZFER' constituted deceptive similarity. Given the potential negative ramifications for public health and safety due to the alleged unauthorized use in the pharma sector, the court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or marketing the impugned mark until further hearing.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Pepsico Inc. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc., granting an absolute ad interim injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited. The court found that the unauthorized use of 'MIRINDA' and its Hindi transliteration by the defendant, particularly in connection with country-made liquor, constituted trademark infringement and dilution. This decision underscores the strong protection afforded to well-known marks under Indian IP law, even when goods or trade channels differ.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Mohd Rafique Alam
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mohd Rafique Alam and others for illegal use, passing off, and infringement of its trademarks (LEVI'S) and associated designs. The plaintiff asserted that LEVI'S is a globally recognized and well-known trademark in the apparel industry. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited v.Dr.Isaac Mathai; Soukya Indian Holistic Centre Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trademarks
In a matter concerning the removal and rectification of trademarks, Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited filed two petitions against Dr. Isaac Mathai and others. However, citing a prior memorandum of compromise between the parties, the petitioner subsequently withdrew both petitions. The Madras High Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissing the cases without making any ruling on the merits or costs.
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Russell E. Freebury v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Russell E. Freebury against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of their trademark 'ZINKA'. The court noted that the goods covered by the appellant were distinct from those cited in opposition, and considering the long-standing use of the mark, it set aside the refusal order. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed with a modified device mark, directing the Registry to process its registration.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
Sunshine Velvet Private Limited v.Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders while addressing an interim application. The court noted that Defendant No. 3 was yet to be served and directed fresh service. Crucially, regarding the core dispute, the court confirmed the existing interim order concerning Defendants 1 and 2, despite their claim of changing the firm's name from 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS' to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS'. The matter is set for further pleading completion.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius (substituted by MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius, seeking substitution of its name with MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The change was necessitated by a Deed of Assignment executed for certain trademarks, including 'TIVOLI HOTELS & RESORTS'. The court permitted the substituted appellant to carry out proposed amendments in the appeal memo and set a deadline for filing the revised appeal.
RSPL LIMITED v.AGARWAL HOME PRODUCTS & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute where RSPL LIMITED alleges that Respondent No. 1's registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' is deceptively similar to its well-known trademarks, 'GHARI' and 'GHADI'. The petitioner has filed an opposition against related marks and sought injunctive relief. The court acknowledged the core issue—the similarity between the marks—and granted the petitioner time to present relevant case law before scheduling a re-notification.
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.