India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 63 of 123 · 3,667 total
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Premier Nutritions Privat Limited v.Amit Product A Proprietary Connern
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Premier Nutritions Privat Limited against Amit Product A Proprietary Connern, finding that the defendant's use of 'DOODH MANTHAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MANTHAN/PREMIER MANTHAN'. Furthermore, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and seize infringing products, reinforcing the immediate protection available to IP holders facing market imitation.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Krbl Limited v.Smerkato
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Smerkato for infringing its well-known trademark 'INDIA GATE' with device, which is used in relation to rice. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive use, goodwill, and acquired rights in the mark. The court found that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff's rights and granted a decree of permanent injunction.
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
Guillermo Horacio Pino v.Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Guillermo Horacio Pino against Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Plaintiff, who owns significant goodwill associated with the children's content brand 'PLIM PLIM,' successfully argued that the Defendants were using an identical mark for baby diaper products. The Court found a prima facie case, noting the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation due to consumer confusion.
Gland Pharma Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
Gland Pharma Ltd. filed a rectification petition against Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, seeking cancellation of the Respondent's trademark 'CLINDIUM'. The Petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the similar mark 'CLINDUM' in pharmaceutical preparations. While the court condoned the delay in filing the petition and ordered the summoning of relevant records, it denied an immediate interim stay on the impugned trademark due to its existing registration status. The matter is now scheduled for further pleadings.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited v.Saatvik Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Bikanervala Foods against Saatvik Foods, concerning the continued use of Bikanervala's concept and intellectual property after the termination of a franchise agreement. While the core dispute is subject to ongoing arbitration, the court issued interim directions. The respondents were specifically ordered to remove photographs installed during the franchise period and modify their menu format to differentiate it from Bikanervala's established standards.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Indulge Sign And Graphics v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant challenged the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on imported LED Module Lights bearing the 'Samsung' brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the goods were counterfeit and if the customs department followed the strict procedural timelines mandated by the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007.
Jagdish Pershad Ladda v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (and others)
The Telangana High Court dismissed a long-pending writ petition challenging an earlier trademark registration order. The dispute involved two parties claiming rights to the 'Super XTRA' mark for detergent products, with one party having filed their application significantly earlier than the other. Given that over sixteen years had passed since the initial filing of the writ petition, the court found the challenge infructuous and declined to disturb the established trademark registration.
Eureka Forbes Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning a trademark dispute between Eureka Forbes and NIXI/related parties. The court allowed defendants to resume use of the domain name www.rocareindia.com, lifting an earlier ex-parte injunction that had blocked it. However, this relief was conditional: the defendants must strictly adhere to existing restrictions prohibiting them from using or representing themselves as connected with Eureka Forbes' trademarks like 'Aquaguard' and 'Forbes'.
Entrepreneur Media Inc v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi
Entrepreneur Media Inc challenged the refusal of its trademark application 'ENTREPRENEUR' by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks Delhi, arguing that the mark was distinctive and had acquired local reputation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the examiner's order. Crucially, the court did not decide the merits but remanded the case back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review based on specific evidence provided by the appellant regarding cited marks.
Seal For Life Industries Us Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Seal For Life Industries Us Llc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANODEFLEX'. The court held that the rejection, based solely on the ground that the mark was descriptive or had a dictionary meaning, was erroneous. Given extensive evidence of long-term international and domestic use, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing v.Guthy-Renker Llc
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing seeking an expeditious decision on its trademark registration application for 'AYU-HINA'. The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2003, had exceeded the statutory period of 18 months for disposal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve the pending registration within a strict timeframe of three months.
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v.Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
In a series of related trademark appeals, the Delhi High Court allowed applications filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the respondent's name. The court permitted the change of Respondent No. 1 from 'Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' to its assignee, 'Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd.', following an Assignment Deed executed on August 17, 2022. This procedural order ensures that all ongoing litigation concerning the assigned trademarks is correctly addressed by the new legal entity.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M I Builders Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against M I Builders Pvt. Ltd. for using the deceptively similar mark 'M.I. CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. Crucially, the court also ordered the cancellation and removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 4164879) from the register, following an out-of-court settlement where the defendant agreed to the terms.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'Officer's Choice,' had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing off due to the Defendants' use of deceptively similar marks like 'High Choice.' This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling goods using the impugned mark until further proceedings.
Intel Corporation v.S.P. Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Intel Corporation in a long-pending trademark infringement suit against S.P. Gupta and others. The court granted permanent injunctions, recognizing the extensive goodwill and reputation of the 'INTEL' mark. Crucially, the judgment was reached after the Defendants indicated they were willing to cease using the infringing marks, leading the court to decree the suit based on this mutual understanding.
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v.M/S Darzi On Call
The Delhi High Court proceeded with the trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Mittal & Anr. against M/S Darzi On Call. The court framed five key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DARZI ON CALL' constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the term 'DARZI' is distinctive to the plaintiffs. This order sets the stage for the trial by directing both parties to file their lists of witnesses and affidavits within specified timelines.
Sh. Amar Tulsiyan v.Harshil Jayeshbhai Shah
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing his registered and adopted trademarks (NIINE, NINE, 9) used in food and personal hygiene products. The court found that the defendant's adoption and intended use of 'Nine Plus' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks and constituted infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vim Industries Ltd
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an interim application seeking continuation and reinforcement of an exparte ad-interim order. The court found that a case for passing off was made out, specifically concerning the use of marks VIM, SURF, and the Splat device in relation to cleaning products.
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.