India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 68 of 125 · 3,740 total
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises
Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
The Goodyear Tire Rubber Company v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Godrej Properties Ltd. v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed the delay in deactivating infringing domain names. The court emphasized that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy must process valid requests from the plaintiff, especially when they relate to misuse of a protected mark. To resolve the dispute, the court directed GoDaddy to file an affidavit explaining why certain domains remain active and providing full details of the domain registrants.
M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Shri Rhythm Agarwal. The core dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, not Chennai. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the lower court's decision, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the appellant had sufficient grounds under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to file the suit in its jurisdiction.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
Ms Shivam Hardware Store v.Ms Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in favor of Ms Century World against Ms Shivam Hardware Store. The dispute centered on the use of the mark 'SHIVAM CENTURY,' which was deemed deceptively similar to Ms Century World's registered marks, including 'CP CENTURY.' Despite arguments that 'CENTURY' is a common word, the court found that the prominent inclusion of this term in both marks, coupled with the similarity of goods and lack of justification for the appellant's use, warranted protection of the respondent's goodwill. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Appy Pie Llp v.Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.
In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. v.Kei Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court overturned an interim injunction that had restrained Raman Kwatra & Anr. from using a similar trademark, 'KEI', in relation to electrical goods. The court found merit in allowing the matter to proceed further, specifically directing the lower court to examine the respondent's claim of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This decision highlights the importance of correctly framing the legal basis for trademark infringement claims during interim proceedings.
M/s.Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh v.Mr.N.Balaji
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh, granting a substantial judgment for the recovery of dues and permanent injunctive relief. The suit involved claims related to goods supplied and investments made towards a joint venture that failed to materialize. Crucially, the court also recognized the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, ordering all defendants to cease any infringement of the 'Langro' trade name and associated logo. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes, combining commercial debt recovery with protection of intellectual property assets.
Patola Industries v.Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the parties, Patola Industries and Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors, into mediation regarding trademark disputes. The petitioner had submitted that they ceased using their trademark, while the respondent sought a permanent injunction against the use of similar marks for namkeens and snacks. Despite differing views on settlement, the court prioritized resolving the dispute amicably by mandating appearance at the Mediation Centre.
Yonex Co., Ltd v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd against unauthorized use of its trademark 'YONEX'. The court found sufficient grounds for restraining infringement related to the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com', ordering the domain registrar, NameSilo LLC, to block the site and maintain status quo until further orders.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Address Infrastructures Private Limited
Emaar Properties filed a suit against Address Infrastructures Private Limited alleging trademark infringement regarding the use of 'ADDRESS' and 'THE ADDRESS' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court issued an ad interim order, allowing the Defendant to continue operating its existing projects under the disputed name. However, the court imposed a strict condition: any future expansion or new project using the word 'Address' must first seek explicit leave from the Court, balancing the Plaintiff's transborder reputation claims against the Defendant's established business operations.
Shyam Sunder v.Pushpa Devi And Ors.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a complex dispute over the usage rights of the registered trademark 'Shehnai' for edible oils. The appeal, filed by Shyam Sunder (the defendant), challenged the lower court's decision which granted co-usage rights to the plaintiffs (Pushpa Devi and Ors.). After examining evidence regarding prior use, partnership history, and consumer perception, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ultimately found that both parties had established usage rights, thereby upholding the principle of shared or concurrent trademark use in this specific context.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Eris Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Eris Health Care regarding the alleged misuse of 'GEMCAL' and 'GEMCAL PLUS' trademarks and associated packaging. The court observed that the defendants agreed to change their marks from 'DE-CAL GEM' to 'DECAL PLUS' (and similar changes for 'PLUS'). After reviewing the proposed new artwork, the court allowed the adoption of the revised designs while permanently restraining the defendants from using any mark or packaging deceptively similar to Alkem’s original trademarks and presentation.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
M/S. Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. v.The Addl. Cit, Range-5, Ahmedabad
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of trade mark expenditure. The assessee also filed a cross-objection concerning the calculation of depreciation on machinery. The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, addressing issues related to intangible asset deduction and depreciation.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
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.