India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 71 · 2,115 total
Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v.Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.
Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.
Darzi India Llp v.Kafil Ahmed
This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr., addressing claims of trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'YATRI' brand used for electric vehicles. The court recognized the Plaintiff's status as a prior user and owner, issuing a broad restraint order preventing Defendants from using deceptively similar marks online or offline. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the market reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's established e-vehicle brand.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Unique International Ev Private Limited v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Unique International EV Private Limited against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric vehicles under the 'PANTHER' brand, successfully argued that the Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by using confusingly similar marks for identical goods (e-rickshaws). This interim relief prevents the Defendants from continuing their alleged infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. and Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. following an amicable settlement. The defendants agreed to permanently cease all use, promotion, and sale of products bearing the mark 'AGROCONTIN.' Furthermore, they acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights in 'NITROCONTIN' and committed not to adopt any deceptively similar marks incorporating the suffix 'CONTIN,' effectively resolving the dispute through a binding decree.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Yogesh Chaurasia
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bisleri International Private Limited against Yogesh Chaurasia. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was passing off their packaged drinking water as being associated with the plaintiff. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant's mark 'BRISLEI,' labels (OXY FINE and BILIFE), bottle design/shape, and even the green cap were substantially similar to Bisleri's distinctive trade dress. This ruling provides immediate protection to Bisleri while the main suit proceeds.
Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v.La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Crocodile International Pte. Ltd against La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. The court condoned the plaintiff's delay in filing its replication and granted an extension for filing a rejoinder, provided the plaintiff deposits costs. Furthermore, the court set out a clear roadmap for the case management, directing both parties to file documents, affidavits of admission/denial, and joint document schedules before proceeding to trial.
Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Flora Beverages India Pvt Ltd
In a commercial IP suit concerning energy beverages, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's request to consolidate multiple claims. The court granted leave for Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to combine its cause of action for passing off with those related to trademark and copyright infringement. This procedural step allows the parties to address all facets of their intellectual property dispute within a single legal framework, paving the way for further substantive hearings.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.As Print Pack Global Private Limited
The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.
M.Ramesh v.V.Balu
The Madras High Court set aside an order from the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, which had rejected a trademark infringement suit based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court ruled that since the defendants were not parties to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, and the dispute concerned trademark rights against third-party entities, the commercial suit was maintainable in civil court. This decision allows the original trademark infringement case to proceed.
X v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (X) against the Defendant (Y), who was accused of manufacturing and selling imitation nutrition supplements. The court recognized the Plaintiff's rights across multiple IP domains, including registered trademarks ('WELLVERSED', 'WELLCORE'), house marks, and copyright subsisting in the product packaging/labels. Furthermore, the court granted several procedural exemptions to facilitate urgent investigation via a Local Commissioner.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Amazon Technologies Inc.
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a Special Leave Petition filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. against Amazon Technologies Inc., concerning the stay of an execution decree related to trademark infringement. The core issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court was justified in granting a stay on the money decree without insisting on the deposit of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the stay.
Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F. v.M/S Udhog Mandir
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision regarding the territorial jurisdiction for a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to return/reject the plaint, arguing that the cause of action did not arise in Bikaner. However, the High Court ruled that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides a special rule allowing an infringement suit to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, even if the cause of action is elsewhere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Signify Holding B V v.Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Signify Holding B V sought relief against Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati regarding the use of the mark 'dignify'. The court noted the defendant's submission that they do not intend to continue using the mark and expressed willingness to resolve the suit amicably. Consequently, the High Court granted a one-week standover period to facilitate settlement while temporarily restraining the defendant from making any further sales under the disputed trademark.
Anita Rajesh Upadhyay v.Automark Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court partially allowed a writ petition challenging an order that appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the original application lacked proper foundation, was filed long after the injunction, and contained arbitrary directions regarding premises searches. While quashing the impugned order, the High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the defendant's objections regarding the commissioner's appointment.
Suresh Gulwani and Others v.M/S Dammani Brothers Through Partner Shri Rajendra Dammani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a stay on an earlier Commercial Court order that had restricted the manufacturing, selling, and advertising activities under the 'SWAD GOLD' trademark. The petitioners argued that the restriction was causing immediate irreparable business loss, halting their entire operations and preventing them from selling existing stock. Given the prima facie case of injury, the High Court decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order until further hearing.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Honasa Consumer Limited sought an interim injunction against Cloud Wellness Private Limited, alleging infringement of its trade dress and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, noting that the issues of originality, prior use, and distinctiveness of the 'Subject Trade Dress' are complex factual questions requiring a full trial. Given the prolonged market co-existence between both parties, the court found no compelling case for granting an immediate injunction.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv & Anr. v.Mr Lalit Kumar Goel & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of the plaintiffs, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein. The court exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, it allowed an exemption from advance service to the defendants, recognizing the imminent risk that the defendant might conceal infringing operations. Crucially, the court directed local commissioners to inspect the premises to ascertain the value of deceptively similar stock and gather evidence against the alleged infringers.
Ebc Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr v.Young Global Publications
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring EBC Publishing against Young Global Publications regarding the distinctive 'coat pocket' edition of Bare Acts. The court recognized that the plaintiffs' unique trade dress, including specific color combinations and font styles, had become iconic and integral to their brand identity in legal publishing. This protective order immediately restrained the defendant from producing or selling similar editions while the main suit proceeds.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Pragati Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement reached between Manash Lifestyle Private Limited and Pragati Enterprise & Ors. The original suit involved claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition related to the brand 'DermDOC'. By agreeing to the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated May 28, 2025, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights, agreed not to use similar marks, and consented to the transfer of the domain name https://dermdoms.com/ to the plaintiff. The court consequently decreed the suit based on this compromise.
Tractors And Farm Equipments Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp
The Madras High Court settled three commercial suits involving Tractors And Farm Equipments Limited and Massey Ferguson Corp. The final decree was passed based on the joint memos of compromise entered by both parties. This resolution effectively merged all previous interim orders related to trademark disputes concerning the 'Massey-Ferguson' brand, providing a definitive conclusion to the litigation.
Agco International GmbH v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
The Madras High Court heard multiple Original Applications filed by Agco International GmbH against Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited concerning trademark infringement, domain name misuse, and interference with licensed intellectual property. Despite the detailed prayers seeking interim injunctions to protect trademarks like 'Massey Ferguson' and associated livery, all parties subsequently filed withdrawal memos. Consequently, the court closed all related Original Applications without issuing a substantive judgment on the merits of the IP disputes.
Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Shafi v.Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Kadar Sayyad Shabbir
This contempt petition was filed by Baba Wheel Alignment against Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment, alleging continued use of a registered trademark despite an existing court injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent had committed grave contempt by continuing to use the protected name and style. Although the petitioner requested a bailable warrant, the Court decided to stand over the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.
Fox And Mandal And Anr v.Somabrata Mandal And Ors
This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S. Safed Parindey Event Management LLP and Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, upholding the Commercial Court's rejection of her request for an interim injunction. The court found that Ms. Pancholi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her proprietary rights over the trademarks "Safedishq" and "SafedParindey." Crucially, the judgment highlighted that while she was associated with 'the Sheri Affair,' ownership lay with another entity, Loop Events & Entertainment, making her claim of prior usage unsubstantiated at this stage. The ruling emphasizes that mere association is insufficient to secure injunctive relief without concrete proof of proprietary rights.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce its registered trademark 'Mather' against entities registering deceptively similar corporate names. The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was failing in its duty to prevent serial infringement of their well-known brand name, which has been used since 1944. While the respondents initially raised a challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court ordered notice to all parties and scheduled further hearings to examine the maintainability and merits of the trademark enforcement claim.
Parth Formulation Pvt Ltd v.Paam Biotech Private Limited
In a passing-off dispute concerning pharmaceutical packaging, the Delhi High Court found prima facie that the defendants' packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. While the court noted the parties were open to settlement, it directed Paam Biotech to change its packaging color away from red and mandated Parth Formulation to submit sales data for the past three years.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v.Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.
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.