India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 71 · 2,115 total
Easy Trip Planners Limited v.Inditab E Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the suit filed by Easy Trip Planners Limited against Inditab E Solutions Private Limited, which seeks permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set timelines for the filing of written statements and replication, scheduling the next hearing for the injunction application.
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute, notably vacating an earlier ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against Defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by presenting inaccurate facts regarding the termination of a franchise agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the original parties (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2) were referred to arbitration. Separately, the Court allowed additional documents for evidence while permitting Defendants No. 3 and 4 to join proceedings after recalling an ex-parte order.
Dharma Production Private Limited v.Bhallaram Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dharma Production Private Limited seeking a stay on an injunction preventing the release of their movie, 'Jigra,' due to alleged trademark violation. The court initially found that prima facie, naming a movie does not constitute trademark infringement when the appellant is not trading in goods or services under that name. However, given that the film had already been released, the High Court ultimately disposed of the appeal while directing the Trial Court to proceed with the temporary injunction application and the main suit strictly according to law.
Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed settlement discussions between Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The defendant proposed settling the suit by conceding the plaintiff's proprietorship in the 'BABAJI' trademark, aligning with a previous court arrangement. The court noted that this proposal was made without prejudice to other pending litigations, requiring the plaintiff to take instructions before deciding whether to accept the offer.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Lincoln Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'Glypanta'. The court ruled that despite initial objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the applicant was entitled to proceed with the advertisement of the mark. This decision underscores the importance of following procedural steps like publication even when substantive objections exist.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. v.Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes between M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. and Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors. The dispute centers on the use and protection of trademarks, specifically 'GHADI' and 'GHAR'. While several interlocutory applications were disposed of, the court formally allowed the suit to proceed, setting timelines for both parties to file their written statements and replies, thereby moving the matter into the substantive litigation phase.
Pachranga International Inc. v.M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark dispute, Pachranga International Inc. sought interim relief against M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd for the continued use of the mark 'PACHRANGA' on social media and in its corporate name. The Court directed the defendant to ensure all remaining infringing listings are removed within one week upon receiving specific examples from the plaintiff. However, the court deferred a final decision on the issue of the defendant using the trademark as part of its corporate name, requiring further consideration after the injunction application is determined.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor Of Fashionista & Ors.
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a contempt petition against Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor of Fashionista & Ors., alleging willful disobedience of a compromise decree dated 13.10.2025. The original suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of Nike's intellectual property. Despite settling the matter and undertaking to cease all infringing activities, the petitioner presented evidence showing the respondents continued selling and soliciting the impugned goods. Consequently, the court found prima facie grounds for contempt and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize the infringing materials.
woodland aero club pvt ltd v.ms narayan enterprises anr
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. sued M/S Narayan Enterprises for unauthorized use of its registered trademarks 'WOODLAND' and the Tree Mark Logo on jackets, causing likelihood of confusion among consumers. Defendant No. 1 was selling infringing jackets at a significantly lower price than Woodland’s genuine products.
Zafar Alam & Anr. v.Mahesh Kumar
This Delhi High Court order addresses multiple interim applications concerning a trademark dispute involving 'LINK' and its variants. The Plaintiffs filed an application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior injunction, while the Defendant sought to vacate that same injunction. The court noted procedural lapses, specifically the Plaintiffs' failure to file required written submissions. Consequently, the court directed the Plaintiffs to submit their written arguments within two weeks before proceeding with the merits of the applications.
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. v.Mr Rajesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. against the defendants regarding alleged infringement and passing off. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of deceptively similar marks ('Safe AQ'/'Safe Accu') and trade dress, as well as confusingly similar corporate names. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from selling or marketing products that mimic Sinocare’s intellectual property, and specific infringing URLs were directed to be disabled by e-commerce platforms.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of marks like 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' was likely to cause confusion with Mankind's well-known trademarks, including 'MANKIND' and its formative variants. Given the pharmaceutical nature of the products and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, the court restrained the defendant from selling or advertising the impugned marks until further hearing.
Rajat Sharma & Anr. v.Tamara Doc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.
M/S Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Romil Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a defendant's application to take certain affidavits on record in a trademark infringement suit. The court ultimately allowed the application, accepting the additional documents despite procedural delays. This decision emphasizes judicial flexibility and the importance of considering the context of litigation history when determining admissibility of evidence.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Martuj Ali & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited against Martuj Ali & Anr. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the well-known status and extensive use of the 'TATA' mark by the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from using the impugned mark 'TATA BIRI' or any deceptively similar variations, preventing consumer confusion regarding their association with the Tata Group.
M/S Bhagwati Enterprises v.Rajesh Kumar Aggrawal
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several procedural applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions for filing copies and instituting pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiff time to amend the plaint after finding that the initial claims regarding manufacturing capacity were unsubstantiated by the records.
Herbalife International Inc. v.Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing interim injunction against Herbalife's trademarks to a newly impleaded defendant (Mr. Narayan Lal Kumawat) after relying on a local commissioner's report indicating counterfeit activity. The court also issued strict directives, requiring all involved parties to discontinue selling infringing goods on Flipkart and disclose detailed transaction information related to the alleged trademark infringement.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sons against Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods (VITA GLUCO+) bearing deceptively similar packaging to TATA GLUCO+. The order also provided procedural relief to the plaintiffs regarding extensions of time, exemption from pre-institution mediation, and permission to file additional documents.
Jsw Mg Motor India Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by JSW MG Motor India Private Limited challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order that treated their application as abandoned due to non-appearance. The Appellant argued that their newly engaged counsel made reasonable attempts to join the virtual hearing but was unable to do so because the VC link was sent to the previous counsel. The Court prima facie agreed with the Appellant, finding that the inability to attend was not attributable to the new counsel. Consequently, notice was issued to the Respondents, and the matter was listed for further consideration.
Kbm Foods Private Limited v.Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Dilipkumar Narandas Sheth Trading As M/s. Arihant Enterprise
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications. The court allowed the defendant to file vernacular and dim documents while simultaneously directing both parties to engage in an amicable resolution. Crucially, the court acknowledged evidence presented by the defendant regarding the historical use of a specific logo as a watermark on invoices dating back to 1993, allowing the plaintiff to inspect these original documents. The judgment emphasizes the possibility of settlement before further litigation proceeds.
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.