India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 57 of 71 · 2,115 total
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Nalli Silk House A/C
This Madras High Court case involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty and Nalli Silk House A/C. The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to dispose of the suit based on the compromise memo. Under the agreement, the defendant committed to changing its business name from 'NALLI SILK HOUSE' to 'NALLAPPA SILK HOUSE' and ceasing all use of the infringing trademark by December 31, 2015.
M & H Management Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Shankar
M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
Symphony Limited v.Roman Marketing & 12
The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief in favor of Symphony Limited concerning the manufacture and sale of aircoolers. The court considered an agreement involving the custody of a cooler mould and referenced a prior restraint order from the Mumbai High Court against one of the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off related to the design. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the appeal proceeds.
M/s.Varsha Productions v.Shivaji Rao Gaikwad
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order concerning a suit filed by the respondent, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (Rajinikanth), seeking to restrain M/s.Varsha Productions from using his name, image, or style in their film project 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth'. The parties subsequently reached a settlement.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc v.Sharekhand Limited
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement agreement reached between The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc and Sharekhand Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement of the trademark 'MAXTRAD'. Under the settlement, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to use the deceptively similar mark 'MAXTRADE'. Consequently, the court decreed the suit based on these terms, concluding the litigation.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
M/S Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd. v.Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement of its trade mark XPERT and copyright, claiming prior adoption in respect of laundry products. The defendants countered by asserting their own established use of the 'SAGAR' trademark and arguing that the marks were dissimilar. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd v.Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors
In a case concerning trademark infringement, Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd successfully reached an out-of-court settlement with Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership of the 'BILLABONG' trademark and agreed to cease using the infringing mark 'BILLABANGS'. Furthermore, they paid a sum of ₹2 lacs as damages in full and final settlement. The court formally decreed the suit based on these mutually accepted terms.
Medical Technologies Limited v.M/S Neon Laboratories Limited
The Gujarat High Court addressed Letters Patent Appeals concerning interim orders related to a trademark registration dispute. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim, the court granted the appellant (Medical Technologies Limited) liberty to approach the Single Judge to seek an early hearing and suitable modification of the existing interim orders. This decision allowed the parties to pursue their claims without being unduly influenced by the appellate ruling.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
The petitioners, registered proprietors of trade marks containing 'UltraTech' or 'Ultra', sought leave to combine their cause of action for infringement with a cause of action for passing off against the defendant. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that it possessed original jurisdiction and allowed the combination of both causes of action.
Times Internet Ltd. v.Time Broadband Services Pvt.Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'timebroadbandindia.com' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's established brand, 'indiatimes'. The court emphasized the priority of adoption and the extensive reputation built by the plaintiff over its digital assets. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted, along with punitive damages.
Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company
This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.
Sushma Berlia & Ors. v.Kamal Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the registered trademark 'APEEJAY' used by an educational society. The suit was filed against a parents' association that had adopted the same name. The court held that even though the defendants were non-trading and non-profit, their use of the mark created a likelihood of public confusion, suggesting patronage or affiliation with the plaintiffs' school. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction preventing the unauthorized use of 'APEEJAY' by the association.
M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd, which sought to overturn an order directing it to change its company name. The court upheld the decision that the petitioner could not use 'Vardhaman' as part of its name because Respondent No. 4 held a registered trademark for the word. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and acquiescence during a marketing agreement, the High Court concluded that using the similar name amounted to an attempt to usurp the established business of the trademark holder.
sandisk corporation v.ms shivji electronics
Sandisk Corporation sued M/S Shivji Electronics for trademark infringement of its 'SanDisk' mark and logo, alleging the defendants were selling counterfeit SanDisk memory cards at significantly lower prices than authorized retailers. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants’ counterfeiting activities in Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi.
Amultek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed a challenge to an interim order preventing Amultek Software Solutions from using the name 'Amultek' due to trademark concerns raised by Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The court allowed the application filed by Amultek, permitting them to temporarily change their name to Atek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd while reserving their right to contest the underlying infringement claims in the main appeal. This decision allows the litigation to proceed toward a final determination of trademark rights.
Educare Limited v.S.K. Sachdev
Educare Limited filed a suit against S.K. Sachdev alleging trademark infringement concerning its well-established school brand, 'SHRI RAM'. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's use of 'ShreeRam World School' and the domain name www.shreeram.in, which the plaintiffs argued was phonetically and conceptually identical to their mark. After considering the plaintiff's extensive reputation in the education sector, the court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the defendants' adoption of the name lacked bona fide intent.
M/S Dabur India Ltd. v.M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Dabur India Ltd. against Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'PACHMOLA'. The court found that, based on prima facie examination of trade dress and product features, there was no immediate possibility of consumer deception or confusion between 'HAJMOLA' and 'PACHMOLA'. While not ruling on the merits of the full suit, the court directed the defendant to maintain and file quarterly sales accounts, allowing the litigation to proceed.
C.I.T v.M/S.Acqua Minerals P.Ltd
The dispute arose from an assessment where the Assessing Officer restricted the allowance of Rs. 2,90,602/- claimed by the assessee as royalty payment to M/s. Parle (Export) Pvt. Ltd for use of their trade mark 'Bisleri', classifying it instead as acquisition of a patent right under Section 35A. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred this question to the High Court.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.M/S. Deep Industry
The Delhi High Court confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Rspl Health Private Limited against M/S. Deep Industry. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'POSH' label was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and artistic work, 'XPERT.' Despite the defendant raising objections regarding jurisdiction and delay, the court found both arguments untenable, upholding the initial order against infringement and passing off.
Sunny Sales & Others v.Binod Khanna
The Calcutta High Court refused the plaintiffs' interim application for an injunction against the use of the trade mark 'LIPU' (and similarly 'SUNSHINE'). The court emphasized that while both parties claimed long-standing usage, neither had established exclusive rights. Given that both were importers sourcing goods from multiple manufacturers in China, and registration applications were recent, the court found no justification for granting an immediate injunction. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts throughout the litigation.
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited v.M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited filed a suit against M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd alleging infringement of several trademarks related to alcoholic beverages. The court addressed multiple interim applications, including those seeking liberty to sue for other unregistered marks and enlargement of time. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the applications, granting an interim injunction that restricts the Defendant from using identical or deceptively similar labels for specific products while permitting the use of generic terms without the protected prefix.
Ram Pal Chauhan v.M/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Bharti Airtel Ltd v.Airtelasia & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bharti Airtel, confirming a decree against Defendant No. 1 for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'AIRTELASIA' was identical and deceptively similar to Airtel's well-known mark 'AIRTEL,' leading to consumer confusion. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the domain name www.airtelasia.com to Bharti Airtel.
Diageo Brands B. v.Khoday Breweries Ltd
Diageo Brands successfully secured an ad interim injunction against Khoday Breweries Ltd in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants were using deceptively or confusingly similar marks, such as KHODEY BLACK & WHITE and VAT 999, which infringed upon Diageo's globally recognized portfolio of alcohol brands like Johnnie Walker and Guinness. This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing to use these infringing trademarks until the final outcome of the suit.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Midley Pharmaceuticals Limied
This Calcutta High Court case involves a passing-off dispute between Sun Pharmaceuticals and Midley Pharmaceuticals concerning the trademarks CARDIVAS and CARVAS. The court framed ten detailed issues, focusing on whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of CARDIVAS, whether the defendant's mark CARVAS is confusingly similar or an imitation, and ultimately, whether the defendant is engaging in passing off. The case was fixed for settlement of these complex trademark infringement claims.
sandisk corporation v.raju aka bilal
Sandisk Corporation sued Raju A.K.A Bilal for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and delivery up concerning counterfeit SanDisk memory cards being sold in Delhi's Old Lajpat Rai Market. The defendant was selling inferior quality fake memory cards bearing the SanDisk trademark at significantly lower prices.
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.