India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 62 of 123 · 3,667 total
M/S. Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks, Govt. Of India
Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious disposal of its long-pending trademark registration application for 'DELPAR.' The Rajasthan High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application no. 2192781 as quickly as possible, specifically within three months from receiving the court order. This ruling provides a crucial timeline for the petitioner's intellectual property rights.
Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt Ltd v.Google India Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court allowed Milaap Social Ventures to amend its original suit, which was initially based on common law passing off. The petitioners sought to incorporate a statutory claim for trademark infringement after their mark ('MILAAP') was registered. The court overturned the trial judge's rejection, emphasizing that amendments should be liberally granted if they do not cause prejudice and are not mutually destructive with existing reliefs. This ruling allows parties to consolidate related IP claims under one suit.
Lakme Lever Private Limited v.Shyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.
This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.
Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd v.Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd against Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from continuing to use the 'Best Western' sub-licensed mark even after the underlying Sub-License Agreement was terminated due to defaults by the respondent. The court found that the continued unauthorized use of the mark, despite termination and legal notice, was likely to cause irreparable damage and mislead the public regarding an ongoing relationship between the parties.
Burger King Corporation v.Swapnil Patil & Ors.
In a significant move protecting its brand integrity, Burger King Corporation successfully secured an ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that defendants were attempting to circumvent previous orders by opening new bank accounts and registering highly similar domain names (www.burgerkingfranchise.co.in). Consequently, the court ordered the immediate suspension of these domains, freezing the associated bank accounts, and mandating the takedown of all infringing online listings.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement and passing off of its medicinal goods under the marks 'SITARED' and 'SETARET', claiming similarity with the defendant's mark 'SITARA-D'. The court found that prima facie, the two marks were not phonetically or visually similar, and dismissed the application for an interim injunction.
Kurlon Enterprises Ltd. v.M/S Goel Foam Co.
The plaintiff, Kurlon Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, M/S Goel Foam Co., was misguiding customers by displaying the plaintiff's glow sign board and selling products under its name without authorization. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved through documentary evidence that the defendant was infringing upon their trade mark and business reputation.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietorm/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors
This Delhi High Court order initiates a trademark infringement suit filed by H.S. Sahni against Saic Motor Corporation Limited concerning the use of the marks 'M.G' and 'M.G.I' in the automotive sector. The Plaintiff claims rights based on continuous use since 1989 and registered trademarks from 1998, alleging that the Defendant is infringing upon these established marks. While procedural applications were disposed of, the Court formally registered the suit and directed the Defendants to file a detailed affidavit regarding their sales figures and product launches under the disputed mark.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Nirmala Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to confectionery products. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that its marks (PULSE/) were being deceptively used by the defendants' goods (PELSE/ and PLUS++/). Furthermore, given the defendants' failure to appear despite service, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.
Inventio Ag And Anr v.Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.S.Sura & Ors
The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed verdict in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo. While the court found that Defendants 6 and 7 were infringing the 'VOLVO' mark through deceptive similarity and dilution, leading to permanent injunctions and costs being awarded to Volvo, it ultimately dismissed the suit against other defendants (4, 5, and 9). The judgment highlights the critical importance of evidence regarding trademark usage and ownership in determining liability.
Vintage Distillers Limited v.Ramesh Chand Parekh
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Vintage Distillers Limited against Ramesh Chand Parekh regarding their alcoholic beverage brands. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'DHOLA THARU' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DHOLA MAARU'. Furthermore, the court recognized infringement not only under trademark law but also under copyright law due to the slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's artistic label design and trade dress. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds.
Cosmos Corporation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Cosmos Corporation seeking correction of a prior order. The correction was necessary because the parties had reached a settlement, resulting in the assignment of Trademark Registration No. 3628175 (TROPICLEAN) from the Registrar of Trade Marks to Cosmos Corporation. This ruling formally recognized the terms of the private agreement within the court record.
M/s. L'Oreal S.A. v.M/s. J.R. Cosmetic Shop
The plaintiff, L'Oreal S.A., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, J.R. Cosmetic Shop, was manufacturing and selling goods using trademarks deceptively similar to its well-known brands like L'OREAL and MAYBELLINE in Hyderabad. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr. v.M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Cipla Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited successfully argued that its restaurant brand, 'BUKHARA,' qualifies as a well-known mark in India. The Delhi High Court recognized the extensive reputation, global acclaim, and long history of the brand, despite similar marks being used by defendants. This judgment reinforces the strong protection afforded to established brands under Indian IP law, particularly concerning transborder reputation.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
MC-monitoring SA v.Pro Tech Monitoring Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in developing predictive health monitoring solutions for rotating machines, sued the defendant for illegal use, passing off, dilution, and copyright infringement of its name/mark MC-monitoring. The plaintiff argued that the mark had acquired international recognition and goodwill. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright in the associated artistic work and trade dress used on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' and passing off inferior products. Both parties subsequently reached a settlement, leading the Madras High Court to dispose of the captioned suit based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of their mark 'GLOW-GETTER'. The court held that while the component word 'GLOW' might be descriptive in cosmetics, the combination forms a composite mark that does not inherently describe the product's quality or kind. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for registration, provided the appellant accepts a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights vest solely in the word 'GLOW'.
Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.
S. Bir Pal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company and Ors.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, S. Bir Pal Singh sought interim protection against Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company. The court issued a crucial order directing Respondent No. 1 not to create any third-party rights in four specific registered trademarks associated with 'AKALI PATRIKA.' This protective measure ensures the status quo is maintained while the main litigation proceeds, setting a key date for further hearing.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
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.