India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 56 of 71 · 2,115 total
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning a suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademark Act. While addressing procedural matters, the court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the appellant (Cadila Healthcare Limited). This interim order mandates that the respondent (Micro Labs Limited) must provide at least one week's prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings related to the dispute against the appellant.
M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. v.Mr.Jonathan Brady & Anr.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed a suit to be settled out of court. M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. successfully convinced the court to enforce an agreement with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Jonathan Brady. The settlement confirmed that 'ULTA PULTA' is the intellectual property of the plaintiff and resulted in the decreeing of the original suit based on the agreed-upon terms.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Saurabh Katar And Others
Eicher Motors Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Saurabh Katar and others. The plaintiff sought to significantly enhance the claimed damages from Rs. 21 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, citing fresh listings of counterfeit products found on the defendants' website. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, noting that it did not alter the nature of the suit and was supported by cogent material available during the pendency of the litigation.
Vifor (International) Limited v.The High Court Of Delhi
This writ petition challenged the mandatory transfer of commercial disputes related to five key statutes—Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyright, and Geographical Indications—to the Commercial Division of the High Court. The petitioners argued that suits under these specific IP Acts should remain in their original forum, even if the value is below Rs. 1 crore. The court provided an interim order, holding that these cases shall not be transferred, while also directing Single Judges to consider amendment applications as per law.
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Akshar Food Products
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd challenged Akshar Food Products for allegedly copying its distinctive packaging design, getup, and style used for ready-to-eat Namkeen products like Ratlami Sev. The appellant claimed their unique visual identity, including color scheme and mascot, was infringed upon by the respondent's similar product presentation. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement based on trade dress, it ultimately dismissed the appeals, directing the respondent to provide sales records for further scrutiny.
Tata Sons Limited v.Aniket Singh
Tata Sons Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and relief against Aniket Singh for alleged infringement of its rights to privacy, publicity, and passing off. The plaintiffs argued that their established goodwill and reputation, associated with the TATA brand, were being harmed by the defendant's actions. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction and awarding punitive damages.
Stephen Koeing v.Arbitrator Nixi And Anr.
This case involved a dispute over the domain name 'internet.in', which was registered by Koening, while Purohit held a trade mark for 'internet'. The core issue revolved around whether the domain name registration infringed upon the existing trademark rights. The Delhi High Court examined the arbitral award concerning this matter. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration finding, emphasizing that the registrant has an obligation to ensure their domain name does not violate third-party rights.
M/S Mirza International Ltd v.M/S Pauls Foot Prints
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/S Mirza International Ltd and M/S Pauls Foot Prints based on a comprehensive settlement reached through court-annexed mediation. The defendant agreed to cease using the disputed mark 'RED TAPE,' deliver seized goods, and pay Rs. 65,000/- to the plaintiff. The Court formally accepted the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2015, thereby decreeing the suit.
M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr
This Delhi High Court order confirms the settlement reached between M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr. The parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading to a decree that acknowledges the plaintiff's proprietary trademark rights. While the plaintiff agreed to waive damages, the defendants formally acknowledged the validity of the plaintiff's trademarks, resolving the litigation amicably.
Virbac Animal Health India Pvt Ltd v.Dahyabhai L Patel
Virbac Animal Health India Pvt Ltd appealed a lower court's decision to reject its plaint. The original suit alleged infringement of copyright and passing off of a trademark. The trial judge had rejected the suit based on Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, citing that the product was manufactured more than fifty times. Virbac argued that this limitation should not apply as their claim also involved trademark passing off, which is excluded from certain definitions in other IP statutes.
Shoppers Stop Ltd v.Shoppers Shop
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Shoppers Stop Ltd and Shoppers Shop following a successful mediation process. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Shoppers Stop's exclusive ownership of the 'SHOPPERS STOP' trademark and 'SS LOGO'. As part of the agreement, the defendant agreed to cease using the marks and pay a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs to the plaintiff.
Priya Food Products Ltd. v.Satya Sai Agroils Pvt Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed a passing off dispute concerning the use of the mark 'Priya' for Soya Chunks. While acknowledging the respondent's prior general use of the mark, the court found that the petitioner had established significant and localized presence in the Eastern part of the country. Consequently, the court granted an interim protective order restraining the defendant from using the word Priya specifically in relation to Soya Chunks within that region.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Italian Edibles Pvt. Ltd.
Nestle filed a suit against Italian Edibles alleging passing off and misuse of its well-known trademark, "MAGGI HUNGROOO." The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that their business was conducted outside Delhi. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Nestle, holding that since the plaintiff had an office in Delhi, the goods were advertised on a website accessible in Delhi, and there was an imminent threat of market entry in Delhi, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr v.Piyush Somani & Anr
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court allowed Microsoft Corporation to secure its intellectual property rights against Piyush Somani. The parties reached an out-of-court agreement where the defendants formally recognized Microsoft as the proprietor of the 'MICROSOFT' trademark. Furthermore, the court directed NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the domain name www.microsoft.co.in to Microsoft, effectively resolving a complex dispute involving both trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited v.Mr.Nitin Blaggan & Ors.
In a significant resolution, Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited successfully concluded its dispute against Mr. Nitin Blaggan & Ors. by reaching an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this agreement, which confirmed that Bestochem is the rightful owner of the trademark 'FLUWEL' for pharmaceutical preparations. In exchange for this confirmation, the plaintiff agreed to forgo claims for damages and costs, bringing a long-pending infringement case to a definitive close.
Ashiana Housing Ltd. v.M/S Total Property Solutions
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ashiana Housing Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against M/S Total Property Solutions for infringing its trademarks and copyrights. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks and replication of proprietary content on their website caused confusion among the public. Furthermore, given the defendant's ex-parte conduct and deliberate infringement, the court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 3 lac and costs to the plaintiff.
Gap(Itm) Inc And Anr v.D.K. Srinivas
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Gap(Itm) Inc and D.K. Srinivas based on an out-of-court negotiated settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in the 'GAP' trademark and agreed to specific undertakings. Furthermore, the defendant committed to paying Rs. 25 lacs in damages should they breach these future agreements, effectively resolving the dispute.
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Group
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and passing off against Royal Group regarding the use of similar trade marks ('HAEMOFORTE' vs 'HAEMO FORTE') in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed prior user rights, but the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that its operations were based outside Delhi. The Court ultimately found that since neither party had a presence or cause of action arising within Delhi, it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Aktiebolaget Skf And Ors v.Zakir And Ors
In this Delhi High Court judgment, the dispute between Aktiebolaget Skf and Zakir was resolved through a negotiated settlement involving Defendant No. 5. The court accepted the mutual agreement, which included Defendant No. 5 providing undertakings to the plaintiffs regarding the delivery of goods and acknowledging their trademark ownership. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiffs to take possession of the infringing goods for destruction.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh v.M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Assessing Officer's order disallowing royalty payments made by M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd. to Tarun Mohan for using the brand name 'phoneytunes.com'. The court held that since Tarun Mohan merely licensed the trademark, and the company was a separate legal entity, the payment of royalty was permissible as business expenditure.
M/s Raj Son Agro Engineers Regd v.M/s Kalsi Metal Works Private Limited
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that allowed a trademark infringement suit to proceed. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could sue in its own jurisdiction based on registered trademark rights, or if the admission that certain goods were unregistered would limit the case to 'passing off.' The court ruled that even if treated as a passing off action for unregistered marks, the plaint contained sufficient averments regarding clandestine sales within the court's territorial jurisdiction to sustain the suit.
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. v.Emami Ltd & Ors.
The appeal challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, which restrained the defendant from displaying an advertisement for 'MOOV' that compared it to the plaintiff's product, ZANDU BALM. The High Court examined whether such comparative advertising amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.
Bharat Balar v.Rajendra Distributors
The appeal concerned a suit filed by Bharat Balar alleging infringement of their registered design and passing off against Rajendra Distributors. The court facilitated an agreement between both parties to expedite the trial process and set aside certain adverse observations made in a previous common order.
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.