India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 74 of 123 · 3,667 total
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.S4S Security Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the suit filed by G4S Limited against S4S Security Services, which alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court noted that G4S holds valid registrations for its marks, including 'G4S'. After considering the allegations of deceptive similarity in the defendant's use of 'S4S', the Court issued notice to the defendants and granted an interim restraint order against them pending further proceedings.
Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd v.Head Digital Works Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd against Head Digital Works Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was leveraging the plaintiff's established reputation by using the trademark 'WinZo' as a meta/title tag on its competing website, thereby causing consumer confusion and benefiting from the plaintiff's goodwill. Despite receiving a Cease and Desist notice, the defendant only made minor alterations to the mark, prompting the court to issue an immediate restraint order.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Delhi Public School Society v.Deepak Kumar Pal & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the use of the respondent's registered trademark 'Delhi Public Secondary School.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent violated a previous consent decree by registering similar trademarks, leading to public confusion. This order reinforces the court's power to maintain the status quo and protect established goodwill against deceptive practices.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Allergan, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Allergan, Inc. challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark in the Delhi High Court. The court initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the Registrar, allowing the defendant two weeks to file a response. This order sets the stage for a substantive hearing on whether Allergan meets the criteria for trademark registration.
Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation v.Amilal Ramkrishnan Dass
This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd And Anr. v.Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Sporta Technologies regarding the domain name 'www.fandream11.com'. Following disclosure from GoDaddy, the court removed Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd from the suit and impleaded Mr. Bapi Das as Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint to seek a declaration of their mark 'DREAM11' as a 'well-known' trademark, allowing the litigation to proceed against the actual domain owner.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its registered mark 'VOLINI'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks like 'VOLINEX' and imitation packaging. The dispute was ultimately resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were infringing their registered trademarks (LION, DEVICE OF LION) and committing copyright violations through the use of deceptively similar branding and slavish imitation of distinctive packaging for auto electrical parts. Despite the detailed claims seeking injunctions and damages, the plaintiffs ultimately decided to withdraw the suit before a final judgment was passed.
Galpha Laboratories Limited v.Shivansh Shrivastava
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed an opposition against the Defendant's application for the trade mark BFOLIN. The court examined the similarity between the established mark B-COLEN and the proposed mark BFOLIN. Satisfied that there is a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Trupti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust Through Bilkis M Mir
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim injunction granted to the original plaintiff (the Trust). The dispute centered on the use of the name and logo 'ANANT' in the educational sector. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark since 2018, thus preventing irreparable injury from occurring to them. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the identical or deceptively similar brand name.
Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the 'Cars24' trademark in Google AdWords. The Plaintiffs sought to press applications for vacation of a previously granted interim injunction, which restrained Defendants from using or purchasing deceptively similar marks as keywords. The court noted that while cross-undertakings were in place, the core issues required a full hearing on merits. Consequently, the matter was listed for further arguments and case compilations.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/S Skynet Placements & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited against M/S Skynet Placements & Ors. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MACLEODS' for deceptive purposes, specifically related to fake job offers. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from promoting or offering services under the mark, and banks were directed to freeze specific accounts linked to the alleged fraudulent activity.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv v.The Origin Ventures & Ors
In a significant ruling for global beverage giants, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv. The court found that the defendants were using the well-known 'CORONA' and 'BUDWEISER' trademarks and logos in a derogatory manner on their clothing line products. Recognizing the prima facie case, the court restrained the defendants from selling or marketing these disparaging products until further hearing, protecting the goodwill of the established brands.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Silvassa Bottling Co
The dispute involved alleged infringement concerning a registered label used by Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd for its beverage product, JEERU. Following an ad-interim order appointing a Court Receiver, the parties reached an agreement regarding labeling changes and the handling of seized goods.
Procter And Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of an Interim Application filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court confirmed the continuation of a previous ex parte order and directed that further orders would be passed on the cause of action in passing off.
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.