India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 72 of 125 · 3,740 total
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd. v.Mr. Rakesh Kumar And Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court provided a final opportunity for the Plaintiff, Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd., to formally include an assignee of the trademarks 'LALMAHAL' and 'SHRILALMAHAL' in the ongoing litigation. The court noted that the assignment occurred in 2018 and granted four weeks to file the necessary application. Failure to do so will result in the suit proceeding without the new party on record.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Shabeer Ahmad Bhat v.Sushil Kumar Pathak
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the petitioner seeking to correct a clerical error in a prior order. The correction involved changing the name of the entity receiving trademark assignments from 'Globiotech International' to 'M/s Glow Biotech Ltd', as stipulated in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This minor but crucial rectification ensures the court record accurately reflects the parties' agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks.
Malabar Cements Limitd v.Drawing And Disbursing Officer, The Office of the Trademarks Registry; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Malabar Cements Limited's Writ Petition, setting aside an earlier rejection order from the Trademarks Registry. The court ruled that a Notice of Opposition filed against Trademark Application No 427808 fell within the prescribed window for filing opposition, based on a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. Consequently, the respondents agreed to accept and record the opposition upon re-submission within three weeks.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.M I Builders Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Private Limited against M I Builders Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the Plaintiff, who holds registered rights in 'CENTRAL PARK' for real estate, had made out a prima facie case. The Defendant was restrained from using the mark 'CENTRAL PARK' either standalone or combined with its group name 'M.I.' to prevent consumer confusion in the ongoing construction projects.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
M/S Rishabh Agencies v.P Kantilal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Rishabh Agencies against a trial court order that denied an interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'preethi' for household goods, claiming prior common law rights in 'preeti'. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that while the plaintiff claimed prior use, the defendant had been operating since 2004. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the defendant and that the core issues required a full trial.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
M/S Ayush Aqua System v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Ayush Aqua System against the rejection of its trademark 'ZENKO' in Class 11. The court found that despite a cited mark ('ZENCO') existing for related goods, the goods applied for were sufficiently distinct. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised before acceptance, provided the appellant restricts itself to the applied-for goods and does not manufacture products covered by the cited mark.
Octave Apparels v.Nirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Nisekind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Nisekind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Mankind, a major player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. The ruling specifically restrained the defendant from using the name 'NISEKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED' and any similar mark containing the word element KIND for medicinal preparations, citing potential consumer confusion and dilution of Mankind's well-known marks.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the use of the trademark 'SARKARI RESULT' and associated domain names. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter and user of the mark by comparing the actions of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The court has listed the matter for further hearing, indicating that the substantive determination of rights remains pending.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd v.Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an Appeal from Order in a trademark dispute between Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd and Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Due to mutual consensus between both parties, the court quashed the previous order passed by the trial court regarding Exh.5 application. The case has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, ensuring both sides are given an opportunity to present their arguments.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.PhonePe Private Limited
This appeal challenged an order that allowed the plaintiff (PhonePe Private Limited) to withdraw its initial commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off, while retaining the liberty to file a fresh suit. The appellant (Resilient Innovations Private Limited) argued this order was erroneous and not maintainable for appeal. The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the Impugned Order did not qualify as a 'decree' under the CPC, thereby ruling on the issue of maintainability.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
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.