India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 62 of 71 · 2,115 total
Rajesh Chheda (Prop. Of Sbhubham Plywood) v.Shubham Plywood Park
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim relief concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the registered mark 'SHUBHAM' was not being used in conjunction with the plaintiff's specific logo or on the product itself by the defendant. Furthermore, the judge noted that 'SHUBHAM' is a common word and household term, making it difficult to grant exclusivity against all users of the name. The court emphasized that merely adopting a common shop name is insufficient grounds for an injunction.
Nne Pharmaplan India Ltd. v.M/S Cgmp Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Nne Pharmaplan India Ltd.'s suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Cgmp Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd., which alleged passing off and infringement of its trade name 'PHARMAPLAN'. The court found that despite both companies operating in the pharmaceutical consulting sector, the names were sufficiently distinct ('NNE' vs. 'cGMP') to prevent customer confusion. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, especially given their own inaction against other entities using similar terms.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited for telecasting television commercials that allegedly disparaged its 'Fairness Cream'. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's advertisement, which compared its product to others using phrases like 'Does your fairness cream work only on the surface?', amounted to actionable slander of goods. The court ultimately found that while comparison and puffing up are permissible, no actual disparagement or economic loss was established at the interim stage.
Meso Private Limited v.Hasanali Kamruddin
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and sought revocation of the leave granted under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The defendant argued that his export business in Pune did not warrant litigation in Mumbai. The court held that due to provisions in the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 62(2)) and Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Section 134), coupled with the fact that leave was granted after hearing the defendant, the Court had jurisdiction.
Pramod Kumar Garg v.M/S Punjab Tractor Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Pramod Kumar Garg against M/S Punjab Tractor Limited regarding the registration of the trade mark 'SWARAJ'. The court found that despite the goods being registered in different classes, the similarity in their commercial use (agricultural sector) and the common consumer base created a grave possibility of confusion. Furthermore, the appellant's claim of honest concurrent user was rejected due to doubts about the evidence provided regarding the timing and nature of its usage.
Glaxo Group Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Glaxo Group Ltd. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its trademark registration appeal for 'VOLMAX.' The Delhi High Court intervened, finding that the IPAB had failed to properly consider key legal issues regarding deceptive similarity and the concept of a family of trademarks. Consequently, the High Court set aside the IPAB's order, restoring Glaxo's appeal to be decided afresh on all merits.
Aveda Corporation v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Aveda Corporation against Dabur India Ltd. regarding the alleged passing off of its trademark 'Aveda'. The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the plaintiff lacked a strong prima facie case because it had minimal market presence in India and could not demonstrate irreparable injury. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendant due to the significant financial impact an injunction would have on Dabur's large-scale operations.
Foodworld v.Foodworld Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Foodworld against Foodworld Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the 'FOODWORLD' trade name in the food business. The court found that while the Defendant could continue its current operations, it was granted a conditional injunction. This means the Defendant is prohibited from using the mark if it enters the highly similar fields of institutional and outdoor catering services, thereby protecting the Plaintiff's goodwill.
Witco (India) Pvt. Ltd v.Nitco
The Madras High Court set aside a previous order that had dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction. The court found that Witco, the established brand owner, had made out a clear prima facie case against Nitco due to the phonetic and visual similarity between their marks ('WITCO' vs 'NITCO'). Given the proximity of the shops and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the High Court granted an ad interim injunction, restraining Nitco from using its mark deceptively in relation to Witco’s goods pending the final trial.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising from an action for passing off. The Plaintiff, a Singapore-registered company using the mark 'Banyan Tree' in the hospitality sector, sued Defendants based on their use of a deceptively similar mark online. Since neither party was physically located within the court's jurisdiction, the Division Bench examined whether the mere accessibility of the defendant's website in Delhi was sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.
Rubaljit Singh v.M/S. Kanz Overseas & Anr.
Rubaljit Singh filed a suit alleging that M/S. Kanz Overseas & Anr. had dishonestly adopted his trade mark 'KANZ' for door closures and hardware fittings, infringing both trademark rights and copyright in the associated artistic packaging. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions against the defendants. However, during the proceedings, the court found on a prima facie view that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were fabricated. Consequently, the interim injunction restraining the defendants was vacated, and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
M/S DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LIMITED v.M/S SHRI LAXAMI TRADER AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted continuance and made absolute the interim injunctions sought by DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited against various traders. The suit involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'SHRIRAM' brand used on Plaster of Paris (PoP) products. The court found that the defendants' use of a confusingly similar mark was dishonest, noting the significant market reputation and extensive advertising efforts of the plaintiff. This decision strongly protects established trademarks against deceptive trade practices.
The Scotch Whisky Association v.Khoday India Limited
The Scotch Whisky Association filed a suit against Khoday India Limited alleging passing off, claiming that the defendant was misleadingly using labels and descriptions evocative of Scotland (like 'SCOT') for whisky manufactured in India. The defendant sought to dismiss the suit via Chamber Summons, arguing that the matter was concluded by a prior Supreme Court judgment concerning rectification proceedings, invoking issue estoppel. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the previous judgment operated only as a precedent and not as res judicata.
M/S. Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd v.M/S. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd, upholding the cancellation of its 'Philips' trademark registration for non-electrical pressure cookers. The court emphasized that due to Philips' globally recognized goodwill and reputation for quality, allowing the petitioner to use the mark would cause public deception and dilute the established brand equity. This ruling reinforces the principle that well-known marks receive broad protection even when used on dissimilar goods.
Eveready Industries India Ltd. v.Anil Gupta Trading As M/S. Shiva Lamps Industries
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute between two trademark holders, Eveready Industries and Shiva Lamps, concerning the use of the mark 'EVEREADY'. While both parties held registrations, the court found that the defendant was restrained from using the plaintiff's stylized form of the word mark. Furthermore, the court restricted the defendant's sales to their five registered states, while directing the transfer of pending rectification applications to ensure a speedy resolution of the underlying trademark disputes.
M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Mega International (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd.'s appeal against a judgment that rejected its claim of passing off regarding the trademark 'GEMCAL'. The court found insufficient evidence to establish Alkem as the proprietor or prior user, noting that both parties were concurrent users. Furthermore, the court observed no instances of consumer confusion and noted significant differences in sales figures, concluding that Alkem's claims were unsubstantiated.
M/s Lachhman Das Behari Lal v.Ghanshyam Das Jetha Nand & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendants seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them in a suit involving trademark, copyright, and passing off claims. While acknowledging the procedural issues raised by the defendants regarding lack of personal service, the court found that the matter required further evidence to determine if there was sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or condoning the delay. Consequently, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v.Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Cadila Healthcare Ltd.'s appeal against an injunction sought to protect its 'Sugar Free' trademark. The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that 'Sugar Free' is inherently descriptive and has become publicis juris in the food industry. While acknowledging a potential risk of consumer confusion regarding ingredients, the court found that the existing restriction on font size was adequate to prevent misrepresentation at this interim stage.
krbl limited v.ramesh bansal
M/S. Krbl Limited (Krbl) sued Ramesh Bansal for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Bansal was soliciting trade and intending to use the 'INDIA GATE' mark (with device) on iodized salt, a product category where Krbl has established significant goodwill and reputation in relation to Basmati rice.
I Plus Inc. v.Consim Info Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed I Plus Inc.'s Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Consim Info Private Limited regarding similar domain names, IndiaProperties.com and IndiaProperty.com. The court held that the terms 'India' and 'Property' are generic and descriptive words, incapable of trademark protection. Furthermore, considering the extensive use and established goodwill of the defendant, the balance of convenience tilted in their favor, leading to the denial of interim relief.
Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty.Ltd. v.Ajantha Pharma Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Uas Pharmaceuticals, which sought an interim injunction against Ajantha Pharma regarding the use of the trade name 'SUNSTOP'. The court found that despite the appellant's international reputation, they had not established their mark in India. Crucially, the respondent was found to be first in the Indian market with a similar product, leading the court to uphold the denial of the injunction based on the balance of convenience and prima facie evidence.
Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
This order from the Calcutta High Court addresses a petition filed by Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. against The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. The court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks and subsequently file any reply thereto within one week. Furthermore, the matter was scheduled for further hearing to consider the petitioner's request for interim relief.
Goenka Institute Of Education & Research v.Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the exclusive right to use the surname 'Goenka' as a trademark in educational institutions. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by the appellant (Goenka Institute), vacating the injunction granted by the Single Judge. While acknowledging the respondents' registered trademark, the court found prima facie grounds for the appellant's continued use of the name, emphasizing that prior use and lack of deceptive similarity were key factors. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full trial on the merits.
Gufic Pvt. Ltd. v.Clinique Laboratories, Llc
The Delhi High Court stayed a previous injunction that had restrained Gufic Pvt. Ltd. from using the word 'Cliniq' in its trademark, citing issues of deceptive similarity and balance of convenience. The court found substantial differences between the two trademarks ('Clinique' vs. 'Skin Cliniq Stretch Nil'), including price disparity (4-8 times difference), product type (Ayurvedic cream vs. non-Ayurvedic product), and distinct packaging styles. Furthermore, considering Gufic's long operational history since 1998/2001, the court ruled that a running business should not be stopped at this stage.
The Singer Company Limited & Anr v.M/S Chetan Machine Tools And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge by the defendants seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that the initial filing was valid, considering documents filed alongside the plaint, including the defendant's own admission that their products were sold throughout India. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to explicitly state how the cause of action arose within Delhi's jurisdiction (via online sales), emphasizing that procedural law should facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.
M/S Shri Krishan Industries v.Kimti Lal Sharma
M/S Shri Krishan Industries filed a suit alleging passing off and trademark infringement against Kimti Lal Sharma, claiming that the defendants were tarnishing their goodwill by using similar trademarks. The plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court based on the claim that the defendant's goods were being sold in Delhi. However, the court found that vague allegations of sales throughout the country, without specifying a shop or place of sale in Delhi, were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction.
M/S Bal Pharma Ltd. v.M/S Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by M/S Bal Pharma Ltd against an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had granted a stay on the registration of a trade mark application, which was sought by Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. The High Court found the IPAB's decision to be balanced and reasonable, noting that allowing immediate registration would create significant complications for the parties involved. Consequently, the court directed the IPAB to expedite the hearing and final disposal of the original appeal.
Lowenbrau Ag & Another v.Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Another
The Delhi High Court vacated an ex parte interim injunction favoring Lowenbrau AG against Jagpin Breweries Ltd. The court found that the balance of convenience did not support granting the injunction, noting that both parties operate globally using the common mark 'LOWENBRAU'. Given that consumers could distinguish between the two beers through other features and considering the defendants' established market presence in India, the court ruled that there was no basis for a passing off claim at this preliminary stage.
M/S.Goldgem Overseas v.Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an injunction in favor of M/S.Goldgem Overseas against Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. regarding the use of the trademark 'AUM' for diamond jewellery. The court found that despite minor stylistic differences, the marks were visually and phonetically identical, constituting infringement under the Trademark Act. The judgment emphasized that when essential features are adopted by a defendant, infringement is established, regardless of packaging or other superficial distinctions.
Mr.Muthukumar; Mrs.Padmavathi; M/s.Alama International v.M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K.K.Academy (P) Ltd); Mrs.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, which had granted an ad-interim injunction favoring the first respondent. The respondents argued that since the suit involved matters relating to Trade Marks Act, 1999, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and constituted an abuse of process. The High Court agreed, holding that the relief sought under the Trade Marks Act must be initiated in the High Court itself.
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.