India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 58 of 125 · 3,740 total
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
Smt. Veena Kumaravel v.Acit, Central Circle - 2 (1)
Smt. Veena Kumaravel appealed an order confirming the levy of capital gains tax on Rs. 6.5 crores received from M/s Groom India Saloon & Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt upon transfer of trademark 'Naturals'. The assessee argued it was only a license deposit, not a sale or transfer.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks, The Trademarks Registry; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash the registration of the trademark 'OMBC' under application no.5054052, which was held by Respondent No. 2. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd against The Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash a registered trademark 'OMBC' held by Respondent No. 2, arguing infringement or improper registration. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Mr. Surender Talwar
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Mr. Surender Talwar for infringement of its trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and copyrights, alleging that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing deceptively similar marks. The court found the defendant guilty of passing off and trademark infringement.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.
In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
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.
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.