India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 65 of 123 · 3,667 total
Livspace Pte. Ltd. v.Livspace-Reviews.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Livspace Pte. Ltd., directing the blocking of the domain name www.livspace-reviews.com. The court found that the defendant's website, which used a similar mark and contained derogatory reviews, was operating clandestinely to damage Livspace's business reputation. Furthermore, the Court mandated regulatory bodies (DoT and MEITY) to enforce the block and ordered a detailed investigation by the Cyber Crime Unit into the domain's ownership.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. v.Ekta Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint, enabling them to include claims of trademark infringement alongside existing passing off claims. This amendment was necessitated by a new device mark registration granted during the pendency of the suit. The court permitted both parties to file amended pleadings, ensuring the litigation could proceed with the updated scope of IP rights.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Lv Bhavani Sankar
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Lv Bhavani Sankar. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FREEDOM' by the Defendant's use of 'FREEDAY' for refined sunflower oil. Crucially, the Court noted that the Defendant's mark had previously been cancelled by the IPAB due to deceptive similarity. Given the near-identical packaging and the concern over food safety standards, the court found a prima facie case existed, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Somesh Choudhary v.Knight Riders Sports Private Limited
The appellant, Somesh Choudhary (a shareholder), appealed an order admitting an application filed by Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd (the operational creditor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The core dispute was whether the non-payment of Minimum Guaranteed Royalties for using the KKR trademark on licensed products constituted an 'operational debt'.
Ruptech Educational India v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous rejection of Ruptech Educational India's trademark application ('SCOTTISH HIGH EARLY YEARS') under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The rejection was based on cited marks owned by Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, but subsequent to the initial order, these conflicting applications were withdrawn following a settlement agreement reached in a related commercial suit. The Court held that since the objections no longer existed, the application should proceed to advertisement.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an interim application seeking permission to amend its suit plaint and interim application. The plaintiff sought to implead Mr. Kuldeep Singh, who was identified as the owner manufacturing counterfeit detergent preparations based on a Court Receiver's report. The court permitted the amendments and continued the existing ad-interim injunction.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Pacific Paints & Anr.
The court heard an interim application filed by Asian Paints Ltd. against Pacific Paints & Anr. The court noted that the initial exparte ad-interim order was in place, and subsequent amendments were permitted based on a Court Receiver's report regarding additional infringing goods. The court decided to continue the existing ad-interim relief for a further period.
Usha International Limited v.Mr Haseen Ahmed Trading As Tusha Sewing Machine Co
The plaintiff, Usha International Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was adopting the deceptively similar mark 'TUSHA' in relation to sewing machines, infringing upon the plaintiff's well-known mark 'USHA'. The court granted an interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize all infringing goods manufactured under the disputed marks.
Mahesh Gupta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a writ petition filed by Mahesh Gupta challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to dismiss his opposition against the trademark application 'KENT'. The core dispute revolves around whether the Petitioner abandoned their opposition due to repeated adjournments. While the Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to appear and request adjournment properly, the Court granted an interim stay on the dismissal order pending production of the impugned order itself.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Protrition Products Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Protrition Products Llp & Ors. The court found that despite having registrations in unrelated classes (29 and 30), the defendants were using deceptively similar marks, such as ABBZORB NUTRITION, for goods like whey protein which fall within the plaintiff's registered Class 5 pharmaceutical category. The judgment emphasized that once a defendant is aware of an existing mark, they must exercise caution to avoid infringement in related classes and goods.
Sh Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v.State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order rectifying entries in the Trade Marks Register concerning two trademarks (No. 1116678 and No. 2091984). Following mediation settlement, the court restored M/s Rattan Milk Specialities Private Limited as the original proprietor of TM No. 1116678, cancelling previous entries in favor of Nirmal Kumar. The court also rectified the entry related to TM No. 2094984. While the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, the primary focus was on correcting the trademark ownership records based on the settlement terms.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.M/S Conset Pharma Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Torque Pharmaceuticals against Conset Pharma. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the pharmaceutical product HEMOPLUS. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the deceptive similarity between 'HEMOPLUS' and the Defendants' trademark 'CONSET HEEMOPULS,' particularly given the low threshold for confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. This immediate relief prevents the Defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell similar products until the final hearing.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, to amend their plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Celebrities Management Private Limited. The amendment sought to elaborate on the grounds for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, specifically by adding details about the defendant's online presence and targeting of Delhi consumers. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it was intended only to buttress the jurisdictional plea, and directed that the challenge regarding lack of jurisdiction would be considered on merits after the amendment.
Health And Glow Private Limited v.Vineet Chugh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Health And Glow Private Limited against Vineet Chugh. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'H&G' for cosmetic and personal care products. Given that Health And Glow demonstrated a strong prima facie case—backed by extensive market presence, high turnover, and registered rights—the court restrained the defendant from using the identical mark until further hearing, preventing irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s business.
Carousel Design Pvt Ltd v.Kurush Noshir Jungalwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Carousel Design Pvt Ltd, who holds the registered trademark 'SHIFT'. The court found that the defendant's adoption of a deceptively similar mark ('CHEMOULD SHIFT') created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite initial attempts at amicable settlement, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading the court to restrain the defendants from using the infringing marks until further orders.
akash aggarwal v.flipkart internet private limited
Akash Aggarwal, owner of the 'V Tradition' trademark for women's clothing, sued Flipkart alleging that the platform’s ‘latching on’ feature allowed third-party sellers to use his brand name and product images without consent, constituting passing off. The Plaintiff claimed significant sales and consumer engagement through Flipkart before this unauthorized usage.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Bombinate Technologies Private Limited v.Koo Coin And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bombinate Technologies Private Limited against Koo Coin and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark misuse. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were using the registered 'KOO' mark and similar bird device marks on fraudulent cryptocurrency platforms (like www.koo.money) to mislead consumers into believing they were associated with the legitimate social media platform. Consequently, the Court directed MEITY and ISPs to block the infringing websites and restrained the defendants from further use of the 'KOO' name or offering digital coins until the final hearing.
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.