India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 57 of 123 · 3,667 total
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation v.Meera Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a civil original trademark rectification petition filed by Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation against Meera Devi. The court found that the respondent's adoption and use of the similar mark 'BAL BIHARI SUPER' was dishonest, as it followed an earlier acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights by her husband. Given the identical nature of the goods (tobacco products) and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the Register.
Dorco Co Ltd v.Durga Enterprises And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Dorco Co Ltd against Durga Enterprises And Anr, successfully removing the infringing 'DORCO' trademark (Registration No. 1252224) from the register. The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of the mark for five years and that its registration was obtained dishonestly to ride on Dorco’s established goodwill. This ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be used genuinely, and prior users with strong reputation have superior rights.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Suffee Garments
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling shirts and apparels bearing falsified trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse logo') and deceptively similar designs (Arcuate Stitching) of the plaintiff. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement and passing off.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Patanjali Ayurved Limited v.Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted Patanjali Ayurved Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors. The court found that the proposed amendments were procedural, correcting inadvertent errors and clarifying the scope of the claims without altering the substance or prejudice to the defendants. This allows the core dispute regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off to proceed with more precise pleadings.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Astral Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Astral Limited and Astralglee following a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs against specific defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) according to the terms of the settlement dated February 21, 2023. Notably, the judgment confirmed that one clause within the settlement—where Defendants admitted 'ASTRAL' is a well-known trademark—would legally bind them.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Mr. X, Trading As, M/S Prabhat Store
In a trademark infringement case concerning Pidilite Industries Limited's products (FEWIKWIK and M-SEAL), the Delhi High Court granted an extension for its local commissioners. The court allowed the plaintiff to continue seizing counterfeit goods based on new market evidence, ensuring that enforcement actions could proceed until the next hearing date. This order maintains the status quo regarding anti-counterfeiting measures while allowing defendants time to prepare their defense.
Ticona Polymers, Inc. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Shivashankar
The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing tobacco products under the trademark HANSCHAAP, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were dishonestly adopting and using identical/deceptively similar trademarks (HANS and HANSVENBA) on their impugned goods. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement, passing off, dilution, and copyright violation.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd v.M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.The Registrar
The Delhi High Court allowed Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation's appeal, overturning the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register a proposed mark. The court held that despite some phonetic similarity, the marks were not similar when viewed as a whole because the cited mark was a composite device containing unique visual elements (a sketch and bilingual text) absent in the appellant's mark. This ruling emphasizes that for trademark opposition under Section 11(1), the comparison must be holistic, preventing mere phonetic resemblance from leading to rejection.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Sandip @ Sandeep Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark opposition proceedings where Petitioners, established users of a mark in the Plaster of Paris (POP) business since 2004, sought cancellation of a registered mark held by Respondent No. 1. The court allowed an initial application for exemption regarding document filing while setting out the procedural framework for the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the parties were directed to file detailed submissions before further hearings.
Astral Ltd v.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd
Astral Ltd filed a suit against Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd, alleging that the defendant's use of the mark 'CPVC FLOWPRO' infringed upon Astral's reputation associated with its trademark 'CPVC PRO'. The core dispute centered on whether the similarity between the marks created a likelihood of confusion in the market. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the proper service of an objection notice related to a trademark application. The core issue was whether the appellant (Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries) actually received the notice sent by the Registrar of Trade Marks, who claimed it was delivered to their agent. Given the conflicting claims regarding service, the Court decided not to rule immediately.
Jainsons Lights Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration for 'Jainsons Lights,' finding it deceptively similar to an earlier mark, 'M/s Jainsons Lites.' The court determined that despite the appellant claiming historical use of the name 'Jainson' since 1978, their specific claim of user for the complete subject mark was only from 2014. Since this date is subsequent to the prior mark's established usage in 2005, the appellant could not invoke Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act to overcome the likelihood of public confusion.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Visage Beauty & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Herbal Carts & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several crucial interim orders in the trademark infringement suit, Visage Beauty & Healthcare vs Herbal Carts & Ors. The court directed Fashnear Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an e-commerce intermediary, to provide contact details of sellers listing infringing products on its platform. Furthermore, the court allowed the impleadment of a proposed defendant involved in alleged collusion and deferred the request by Facebook Inc. to modify existing interim injunction terms regarding 'similar' vs. 'identical' URLs.
Umang Dairies Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Umang Dairies Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark 'WHITE MAGIK'. The court found that while the word 'WHITE' might relate to milk products, the composite mark is suggestive rather than descriptive. Furthermore, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar from cited marks and noted that evidence of use had been on record but overlooked by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the registration process was directed to proceed.
Smithkline Beecham Limited v.Gskfinancial.Com & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, Smithkline Beecham Limited sought relief against rogue websites operating under similar domains like gskfinancial.com. The plaintiff alleged that these sites were fraudulently collecting money from the public while incorporating its corporate identity and trademarks (GSK). The court issued extensive interim directions, including permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, restraints on domain name registration, and specific orders to block access to fraudulent websites and freeze associated bank accounts.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of an identical trademark from the register, arguing that their own mark was already registered. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Inbrew but granted Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. an opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the removal prayer. This interim order sets the stage for further litigation regarding trademark rights.
Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
This order in Landmark Crafts Private Limited vs Union Of India concerns the rectification of Trademark No. 266607. The court noted that the matter was pending and scheduled it to be listed before the IP Division on March 2, 2023. This procedural step indicates the ongoing legal process aimed at correcting issues related to the registered trademark.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Rajdeep Sharma & Anr.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd filed a contempt petition alleging that Mr. Rajdeep Sharma and others were willfully disobeying a prior court order dated May 11, 2017. The original order required the respondents not to use the 'CLARIDGES' trademark. Claridges presented evidence showing the respondent continued using the trademark for a real estate project in advertisements. While the petition was filed alleging infringement and contempt, the Court issued directions for further proceedings rather than delivering a final judgment.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
Laboratoires Expanscience v.Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
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.