India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 69 of 71 · 2,115 total
Kellogg Company v.Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai And Another
Kellogg Company appealed a single judge's order that refused to grant a temporary injunction against Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai and another. The dispute centered on the respondent using a corn flakes carton similar in size and design (trade dress) to Kellogg's, leading to allegations of consumer confusion. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the prominent difference between 'Kellogg's' and 'AIMS ARISTO' made any likelihood of confusion negligible.
K.G. Khosla Compressors Limited v.Survika Industries
K.G. Khosla Compressors Limited filed a suit against Survika Industries, alleging that the defendant was illegally using the plaintiff's proprietary drawings and specifications to manufacture components and spare parts for compressors. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant was passing off these goods as if they were manufactured by K.G. Khosla Compressors, thereby damaging its goodwill and reputation. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's unauthorized manufacturing and trading activities.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed applications for interim injunctions filed by members of the Kirloskar Group against other entities. The core dispute revolved around the unauthorized use of the word 'Kirloskar' in corporate names and trading styles. The court upheld the lower court's order, finding that the appellants were likely to deceive or confuse the public by adopting the name without proper affiliation with the established group.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved multiple civil suits filed by Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. (respondent/plaintiff) against various companies (appellants/defendants). The core issue was whether the appellants, despite not belonging to the 'Kirloskar Group of Companies', could use the word 'Kirloskar' in their corporate names and trading styles without infringing on the goodwill and reputation established by Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. The Bombay High Court upheld the interim injunction, finding a likelihood of deception or confusion.
Rupee Gains Tele-Times Private Ltd. v.Rupeea Times
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an ad-interim injunction, ruling that the defendant's use of 'RUPEE TIMES' did not constitute passing off or trademark infringement against the plaintiff's 'RUPEE GAINS'. The court held that 'RUPEE' is a descriptive term synonymous with money and finance, commonly used in financial publications. Given that readers of such journals are articulate and the two publications had distinct styles and logos, no confusion among the general public was found.
Jothi Chemicals And Detergents v.Jyothy Laboratories
The Madras High Court dismissed the application seeking to maintain an interim injunction, favoring Jyothy Laboratories. The court found that Jothi Chemicals failed to establish a strong prima facie case for passing off, noting significant laches on the part of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated extensive market presence and reputation since 1982-83, while the plaintiff's operation was characterized as a small cottage industry with delayed claims.
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. v.The Coca Cola Co.
The dispute involved trade rivalry and contractual issues between M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. (GBC) and The Coca Cola Co., concerning the bottling and distribution rights for various soft drink brands like Thums Up and Limca. GBC was party to several agreements with Coca Cola, but it allegedly breached these terms by transferring shares without consent. The Supreme Court upheld an interim injunction granted in favor of Coca Cola.
Mohan Kumar v.M/S. Narendra Products
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Mohan Kumar against M/S. Narendra Products. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the use of the similar mark 'SHANKER' for Pan Masala (Gutka). The court ruled that it possessed jurisdiction, noting that the defendant had applied for registration and advertised the mark in Delhi, thereby establishing a sufficient connection to the territorial limits.
Nut Limited v.Nut
The case involved a dispute concerning infringement of registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off. The core legal issue addressed was the proper method of valuing the relief sought for rendition of accounts for both court fees and jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act.
Haryana Breweries Ltd. v.Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi, Lt. Governor
Haryana Breweries Ltd. petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to grant an L-1 license for wholesale beer vending for four brands, including Haywards Lager Beer and Haywards-2000 Extra Strong Beer. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not own the trade mark rights for these specific brands, which were registered in the name of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.
M/S. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise, Chandigarh
The appeal challenged the classification of pharmacopoeial Dextrose injections as patent or proprietary medicines attracting central excise duty under Tariff Item 14E. The department argued that the use of a monogram ('AP ASTRA') established a connection between the manufacturer and the medicine. The Supreme Court ruled that since the mark only identified the manufacturer, it did not establish a proprietary relationship with the specific medicine.
Ved Prakash v.Samir Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the trade mark 'CMCS' in computer training. The plaintiff, Ved Prakash, sought protection against defendants who were using a similar mark. However, the court noted that the mark was essentially the abbreviation of a pre-existing Government Undertaking operating in the same field. Given this prima facie evidence suggesting piracy by the plaintiff, the application for injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were directed to maintain proper accounts.
Cycle Coporation Of India Ltd. v.T.I. Releigh Industries Pvt. Ltd. And ...
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Cycle Corporation of India Ltd.'s appeal seeking the removal and cancellation of 12 trade marks belonging to T.I. Raleigh Industries Pvt. Ltd., which relate to bicycles. The court found that despite the expiration of earlier collaboration agreements, the appellant's actions—including abandoning applications for permitted use while simultaneously filing for mark removal—demonstrated an attempt to take advantage of its own wrong. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not apply because no royalty was payable under the usership agreement.
Festo Controls (P) Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise
The appeal challenged an order denying exemption benefits and imposing differential Central Excise Duty (CED) and penalty on Festo Controls for manufacturing products under the brand name 'FESTO'. The department alleged that 'FESTO' was the trade name of their collaborator, FESTO KG Germany, and its use constituted evasion. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order regarding the branding issue but remanded the case for de novo consideration concerning suppression and duty computation.
Da Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v.Cruickshank & Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an ad interim injunction favoring Da Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. (BDA) against Cruickshank & Co. Ltd. (C&C). The dispute centered on a Deed of Assignment where C&C transferred three key trademarks and associated goodwill to BDA for the business of Indian made foreign liquors. The Court found that, prima facie, the Deed of Assignment was duly executed and acted upon by both parties, thus entitling BDA to protection against unauthorized use of the marks.
Calvin Klein Inc. v.International Apparel Syndicate
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Inc. against International Apparel Syndicate, finding a prima facie case of passing off. The court determined that the respondents were deliberately attempting to deceive consumers by using marks and advertisements virtually identical to those of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner not having local registration or business presence in India, the court held that its international reputation was sufficient grounds for protection, making the interim order absolute.
M.K. Agarwal And Anr. v.Union Of India And Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed petitions challenging the registration of foreign newspaper titles as trademarks. The core issue revolved around whether existing registrations under the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867, should prevent trademark registration by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court ultimately dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims and questioning their locus standi to challenge government policy.
Carew Phipson Limited v.Deejay Distilleries Pvt. Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of spirituous liquors, claimed that the defendants were deceptively using similar bottle labels and marks ('English Duet Gin N Lime', 'Duet Gin N Orange') for their competing alcoholic preparations. The plaintiffs sought interim relief for passing off and copyright infringement.
Kabushiki Kaiha Toshiba (Toshiba) v.Toshbia Appliances Co.
This Calcutta High Court appeal addressed a challenge to the rectification of the 'TOSHIBA' trademark registration in Class 7. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent had the requisite locus standi to seek removal of the mark based on non-use, given that they had never manufactured or sold washing machines or spin dryers. While the court acknowledged issues regarding the application of Section 46(1)(a) versus other sections, it ultimately dismissed the appeal after the respondent conceded that the rectification should be limited only to the two specific goods in question.
M/S. J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited v.Rose & Thistle And Another
This Calcutta High Court judgment addressed an application to remove a registered trademark based on non-use. The core issue was whether 'special circumstances in the trade' could excuse the proprietor from meeting the statutory requirement of continuous use for five years or more. The court ultimately found that the existence of a similar product (Vimto) being sold despite import restrictions negated the claim of special circumstances, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Dhinamalar v.Daily Thanthi
Dhinamalar, a major Tamil daily, sued Daily Thanthi for infringing its mark and passing off its children's magazine supplement, 'Siruvar Malar'. The dispute centered on whether the use of this name by the competitor constituted an exclusive proprietary right or merely a common descriptive term.
Weston Electronics Ltd. v.Weston Industries And Another
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Weston Electronics Ltd. against Weston Industries And Another, finding that the latter was passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The court recognized the extensive reputation and continuous use of the 'WESTON' trademark by the plaintiff since 1966 across various electronic goods. Despite initial disputes regarding product categories, the court ruled that the defendant's use of an identical mark for cycle parts was likely to cause confusion and deception among the public.
Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works v.M/S. Pomx Laboratory
The Delhi High Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction in a passing off action brought by Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works against M/S. Pomx Laboratory. The court heavily scrutinized the plaintiff's unexplained delay, noting that despite receiving notice in June 1990, the suit was not filed until September 1991. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case of harm or improper motive, ultimately balancing the risks against the defendant's long history of open concurrent trade.
Avis International Pvt. Ltd. v.Avis India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing-off suit where the plaintiff, owning the 'AVIS' trademark for garments, sought to stop the defendant from using the same name for air coolers. While acknowledging the difficulty in proving that the goods were cognate or sold through the same channels, the court partially granted relief. It ruled that although the defendants could continue marketing their products under the trade name Avis, they were restrained from using the specific peculiar manner of representation registered by the plaintiff under the Copyright Act.
Lakshmi Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakshmi Polymers
The plaintiff filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from issuing circulars or notices threatening legal action for passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the trade mark 'Lakshmi' for PVC pipe fittings by both parties, with the defendant claiming prior use and having applied for registration.
M/S. Kamath Atul & Co. v.M/S. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Kamath Atul & Co., filed a passing off action against the defendant, M/s. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd., alleging that the latter was marketing an Ayurvedic herbal skin ointment under the name 'HERBINOL', which infringed upon the plaintiff's established trade mark 'HURBINOL'. The High Court dismissed the appeal but modified the temporary injunction order to restrict the defendants from marketing their product in five specific states until the suit's disposal.
Girnar Tea v.Brook Bond (India) Ltd.
Girnar Tea filed a suit for passing off against Brook Bond (India) Ltd. alleging that the latter was using the deceptively similar mark 'GULNAR' on tea cartons, thereby confusing consumers. The court found that both marks were phonetically and visually similar, and despite initial arguments regarding retail outlets, ruled in favor of Girnar Tea, granting an injunction.
Antox India (P) Ltd. v.State Drug Controller, Tamil Nadu And ...
Antox India (P) Ltd., holding a valid license for Cal-De-Ce, challenged the manufacturing license issued by the State Drug Controller, Tamil Nadu, to another party. The petitioner argued that allowing multiple manufacturers under the same trade name violates public interest and provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court agreed, quashing the impugned order and directing the cancellation of the second respondent's license.
Collector Of C. Ex. v.Bengal Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals
The dispute concerned whether medicines manufactured by Bengal Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals, which bore the registered trade mark 'Bengal Chemicals' on their caps, should be classified as 'Patent or Proprietary Medicines' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that merely having a registered trademark is not sufficient; the mark must indicate a proprietary interest in the medicine, especially when the medicines are already specified in pharmacopoeia.
Exite Laboratories v.A.A. Products (India) And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Exite Laboratories against A.A. Products, finding that the defendant's use of the trade mark 'EXIDE' was likely to cause confusion and constitute passing off against the plaintiff's established mark 'EXITE'. The court emphasized that prior use and acquired goodwill are critical factors in such disputes, even if the marks are not formally registered. This ruling protects established market reputation from deceptive imitation.
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.