India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 65 of 125 · 3,740 total
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.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. The plaintiffs sought permission to amend their pleadings to identify and join another party involved in manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit cosmetic preparations. The court allowed the amendment and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc. seeking amendments to its suit plaint and related petitions. The Plaintiffs sought to incorporate additional impugned marks and parties into the case title based on new information received from a Court Receiver's Report. The court allowed the amendments and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Ved Prakash Soni v.Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between Ved Prakash Soni and Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed an exemption application while simultaneously issuing notice to the respondents regarding the main suit. Both parties were directed to exchange necessary documentation, with a timeline set for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the substantive litigation is proceeding.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited v.Trademarks Registry
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited against the Trademarks Registry. The court found that the registry's impugned order, which sought to cancel the registered trademark 'GITAGGED', lacked proper adjudication and failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh disposal.
Great White Global Private Limited v.S. S. Cable Mfg. Co.
In this trademark dispute, Great White Global Private Limited sought resolution against S.S. Cable Mfg. Co. The court noted that the defendants had communicated their intent to settle amicably and provided an undertaking not to use the disputed marks (SS GRAND WHITE or GRAND WHITE) in the future. Consequently, the matter was directed towards a formal settlement hearing, indicating a potential amicable resolution of the trademark conflict.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute between two brothers regarding the exclusive rights to the trademark 'Superon' following a Family Settlement concerning their company. The court formalized an agreement where Sharad Mehra conceded the right to use 'Superon' in the domestic market, while Sanjay Mehra gained exclusivity for that territory. To facilitate this transition, the court directed parties to seek expedited approvals from Metrology and GST authorities regarding packaging changes.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Akash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v.M/S. Servomax Precious Electronics
The Telangana High Court set aside a lower court's dismissal of an application for interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving the 'Servomax' brand. The appellant, claiming ownership based on an assignment deed from 1998, argued that the respondent's subsequent registration was obtained through fraud and concealment of prior rights. Given the ongoing injunction and the merits of the claim regarding fraudulent acquisition, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit while maintaining the interim protection for the appellant.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd v.Ch V Pulla Rao
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed a petition alleging that Ch V Pulla Rao was willfully disobeying a settlement agreement by using the deceptively similar trademark "A VITA Z" against Alkem's mark, "A to Z". The petitioner presented photographic evidence of the alleged infringement. The respondent denied the allegations and stated they were not using the infringing mark. The court noted that the respondent's counter affidavit was missing and listed the matter for further hearing.
Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited v.Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited against Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya. The suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the pharmaceutical brand 'GLIMET'. The court found that the impugned mark 'DLYMET' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered mark, especially since both were intended for medicinal preparations. Given the strong prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury, the court ordered a temporary restraint on the defendant's use of the disputed mark.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
Komal Meena v.Mayank Pareek
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a lower court's order that had rejected an application for a temporary injunction. The core issue was whether the lack of a registered trademark barred the plaintiff from seeking relief in a passing off suit. The High Court clarified that while registration provides exclusive rights, Section 27(2) allows suits for passing off even if the mark is unregistered. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the injunction application based on the correct legal principles.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Pan Parag India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition filed by M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd against Pan Parag India Limited & Anr. The court granted the relief based on an undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated they had no intention to use the impugned registered trademark 'GOLDIE' in their trade business of PAN MASALA. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel and expunge the registration within six weeks.
M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd.
The Delhi High Court resolved a complex trademark dispute between M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Kent RO Systems Ltd. The case involved an injunction suit against alleged infringement of the 'HEPA PURE' trademark. After extensive litigation, including appeals challenging rectification orders, the parties successfully entered into mediation. Consequently, the court decreed the original suit based on a settlement agreement, allowing Kent RO Systems to continue using the mark while Mankastu Impex agreed not to object.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
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.