India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 60 of 71 · 2,115 total
M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. v.The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Kochadai, Madurai
The dispute involved the classification of a lump sum royalty paid by Fenner (India) Ltd. to Fenner, U.K., for the use of the 'FENNER' trade mark. The Assessing Officer treated this payment as capital expenditure, but the Tribunal partially allowed both sides' appeals on different grounds.
M/S Fastrack Communications Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Singhal
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Fastrack Communications against Manish Singhal regarding the use of the mark 'LEMON'. Although the plaintiff argued for an injunction based on prior usage and apprehension of passing off (a qua timet action), the court noted that the defendant had categorically stated he would not launch or use the trademark until his own registration application was decided. Given this stand, the court found no further basis to sustain the suit, despite acknowledging the plaintiff's right to file such an action.
Merck Kgaa v.Galaxy Hompro And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Merck Kgaa's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision, upholding the registration of the trademark 'RECIBION'. The court found no deceptive similarity between 'CEBION' and 'RECIBION', emphasizing that the common suffix 'BION' is widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Crucially, the judgment noted the petitioner's lack of recent use of its mark and applied the strict test for confusion, concluding that the marks were sufficiently distinct.
M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax
Hero Honda appealed a Service Tax order confirming tax liability based on the Revenue's view that permitting third parties (BPCL, Tide Water, Savita Chemicals) to use its trade marks ('Hero Honda', 'Hero Honda 4T') constituted taxable Intellectual Property Services. The Tribunal ultimately ruled that the demand was largely barred by limitation because there was no evidence of suppression or malafide intent on the part of the appellant.
Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Anand Menon & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Anand Menon and others. The plaintiff, which holds registered trademark rights for 'EXECUTIVE ACCESS' and its associated logo in India, alleged that the defendants were operating a competing executive search business using similar names and misrepresenting their affiliation with the plaintiff. The court found a strong prima facie case, recognizing the importance of protecting the plaintiff's territorial rights in the Indian market.
Shree Siayaram Fab Private Limited v.Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd.
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's orders regarding a suit for infringement and passing off. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could file an infringement suit despite the defendant having a registered trademark, which the appellant argued barred the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd. v.Double Coin Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the trademark 'Double Coin' used for tyres. The court examined whether Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd., which had established significant market presence and registered the mark, was entitled to protection against Double Coin Holdings Ltd. The judgment focused heavily on the principles governing interim injunctions, ultimately finding that a prima facie case existed in favor of Double Coin Holdings Ltd. based on the goodwill associated with the brand.
Ms. Sakshi Mathur v.Dr. Nand Kumar & Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (AIIMS)
Ms. Sakshi Mathur filed an appeal seeking certified copies of question booklets, OMR answer sheets, answer keys, and marks/rank from the AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011. The respondents claimed these materials were intellectual property exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and that a fiduciary relationship existed under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected these claims, ruling that the information was not exempted and directing the PIO to provide the requested copies.
M/s.Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.M/s.Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited
The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, arguing that since their mark was also registered, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court rejected this contention, holding that while sections like 29 and 30(2)(e) provide defenses to an infringement action, they do not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v.Radico Khaitan Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. v.Word Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. challenged Word Of God Fellowship Inc., claiming infringement and passing off related to its registered trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK'. The appellant sought permanent injunctions against downlinking, distribution, and use of the mark in India. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the respondent was honestly using their pre-existing global business name. Furthermore, the court held that since the program was originally designed by the respondent, they retained original ownership rights, preventing restrictions on their usage.
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. transferred its intellectual property rights (trade marks, designs, and copyrights) related to 'Kwality' biscuits to M/s.Britania Industries Ltd. for ₹30 crores. The Assessing Officer taxed this receipt as long-term capital gains, arguing that the transfer included the right to manufacture. The Tribunal ultimately held that the right to market was distinct from the right to manufacture.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Nizami Garments
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.
Madhu Product v.Sundaram Files
Madhu Product, a manufacturer and seller of stationery goods since 1978, holds a registered trademark 'NANDI'. The petitioner filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents for infringement of this trade mark. The writ petitions were filed challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim order.
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v.Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.
The Indian Express Limited v.Express Publications Madurai Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by The Indian Express Limited against Express Publications Madurai Limited. While the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of 'The New Indian Express Group' constituted illegal infringement and passing off, the court found no valid ground to grant an injunction. However, to prevent consumer confusion, the court imposed a condition requiring the defendants to append 'Madurai' and their place of publication when using the expression outside the territories permitted by prior agreements.
Smt K Nirmala Raghava Rao v.N G Subbaraya Setty
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and royalty recovery related to perfumes. The petitioner sought to stay a subsequent suit, arguing that the issues were identical to an earlier case where the trademark was assigned to a bank. However, the court ruled that the two suits involved distinct legal claims—one concerning injunction/royalty prior to assignment, and the other regarding damages post-termination of the agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a stay was dismissed.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v.M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories against Intas Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged similarity between their drug trademarks, 'NIFTRAN' and 'NIFTAS'. While the plaintiff sought an interim injunction, the court did not grant a blanket injunction. Instead, it directed the defendant to maintain complete accounts of sales and profits from the product sold under 'NIFTAS', and imposed specific restrictions on packaging types used by the defendant pending further proceedings.
Thalappakattu Biriyani and Fast Food (temporarily called as "Chennai Rawther Thalappakattu Biriyani") v.M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement and passing off of the trade mark "Thalappakatti Naidu Biriyani Hotel" by M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas, which used the similar mark "Thalappakattu". The court examined the prior use and reputation of the Plaintiff's mark versus the Defendant's adoption of the similar name.
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd. v.Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.
krizm hotels private limited v.vaishnavi estatesp ltd
M/S Krizm Hotels Private Limited (Lemon Tree hotels) sued M/S Vaishnavi Estates(P) Ltd for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's use of 'Lemon Tree Apartments' for residential apartments created confusion and diluted the plaintiff’s hotel brand. The plaintiff claimed significant investment in their Lemon Tree hotel chain and sought an injunction to prevent further use of the mark.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive damages.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors. v.Surjit Singh Sial & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's website for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly selling and promoting Himalaya products while creating a false impression of being authorized dealers. Furthermore, the parties settled on damages, with the defendants agreeing to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v.Euro Ice Cream & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled against Drums Food International in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'HOKEY POKEY'. The court held that even if a plaintiff starts using a mark after a defendant has filed an application for registration, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a passing off or infringement action. The judgment strongly affirmed the priority given to registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that registration provides a robust legal shield against subsequent users.
Siddhant Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Thanco Enterprises
The Bombay High Court rejected the defendants' attempt to set aside a prior injunction restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs' registered mark 'NATURAL' and passing off their goods. The court found that the application was not bona fide, noting that the defendants sought to rely on documents they could have easily accessed earlier. Consequently, the original order protecting the plaintiff's trademark and copyright was upheld and made effective immediately, with the defendants ordered to deposit proceeds from sales during the restricted period.
Anu Ambraile Proprietrix M/s.AA Impex Company v.The District Collector Tiruvallur
Anu Ambraile challenged various orders related to the cancellation of her property mark registration and the subsequent seizure/confiscation of red sanders wood. The court ultimately found that the initial seizure and confiscation were void, upholding the judgment that the petitioner was not involved in illegal exports.
M/S Loreal v.Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Loreal against Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr., finding that the defendants were infringing upon Loreal's registered trademark 'L'OREAL'. The court determined that the use of the identical mark on similar cosmetic goods constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, noting a clear case of triple identity (same mark, same goods, same market). Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants, although claims for damages were rejected due to lack of evidence.
United Breweries Ltd v.Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd
The Karnataka High Court addressed the complex interplay between design infringement and passing off in a dispute involving breweries. The court emphasized that while an action for design infringement is possible under specific conditions, the primary focus of the case involved establishing passing off. The judgment highlighted the distinct legal tests required for each claim, noting that passing off requires demonstrating deception by the public regarding the source of goods.
M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons v.Madhusudhan Singh And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons, finding that the defendant infringed upon their registered trademark and engaged in passing off. The court held that the use of 'GIAN'S' by the defendants was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'GIANI'S', leading to consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
M/S Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D.K. Electricals AC+ (and others)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim temporary injunction in favor of Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. against several defendants, including D.K. Electricals. The dispute centered on alleged passing off concerning the trademarks "PRETTY" and "WINNER," used for electrical appliances. The court found that Sancheti had established a prima facie case of prior usage and reputation for these marks since the 1980s. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using similar marks until the final disposal of the suits.
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.