India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 75 of 123 · 3,667 total
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vansh Cosmatic & Anr
The court heard an interim application regarding a commercial IP suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Vansh Cosmatic & Anr. The defendants offered a token amount as damages, but the court noted that the counterfeit HUL goods were being sold at MRP, indicating significant potential damage. Consequently, the court granted further injunctions and allowed the seizure of counterfeit goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Aarif Miraj And Anr
The Bombay High Court heard an interim application filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Aarif Miraj and others. The court confirmed the execution of previous orders, granted an injunction concerning passing off, and allowed the plaintiff liberty to file a further application for the destruction of counterfeit products.
Loreal S.A. v.Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Loreal S.A., a global beauty brand, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing-off. The court found that the defendants were operating a 'rogue website' (www.lorealglobal.in) and using email addresses mimicking L'OREAL's domain to deceive the public. Crucially, the court issued specific directions compelling the domain registrar and telecom service provider to disclose user details and block access to the infringing online assets, establishing a strong precedent for digital IP enforcement.
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
In this matter concerning a petition before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed several procedural applications. While certain motions were disposed of, the bench issued a critical direction requiring the petitioner to implead the actual registered proprietors of the trademark in question. This step is necessary because a favorable ruling could lead to the cancellation of their registered mark, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with the core dispute.
Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. v.Victoria Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and associated defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' mark 'Blofin-D3 Max' and packaging were identical to the Plaintiff's registered marks ('Bio-D3', 'Bio-D3 Max') used for similar pharmaceutical preparations. Although Defendant No. 1 changed its mark, the injunction was upheld against all parties involved in the collaboration, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Alkem Laboratories Limited against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd following an amicable settlement reached through court mediation. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Alkem’s registered trademark ‘ALDIGESIC’ in medicinal preparations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Defendants acknowledged Alkem's rights and agreed to cease using the infringing mark and similar trade dress, further agreeing to withdraw their own pending trademark application for 'ALGESIC'.
Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd v.LN Agency
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd, the registered proprietor of the 'LUXXUBERANCE' trademark. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the court appointed a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver in Jamshedpur to seize and inventory all infringing goods and issue a temporary injunction against the Defendant's further misuse of the trademark.
RICA S.P.A. v.JATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.
STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, INC. v.STANLEY SWITCHGEAR PRODUCTS
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Stanley Black and Decker against Stanley Switchgear Products. While allowing procedural applications for filing additional documents, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit seeking permanent injunction based on an alleged violation of a 1975 undertaking regarding the use of the 'Stanley' trademark. Crucially, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an immediate ex-parte interim injunction, noting that there was no apparent evidence of goods being marketed beyond the scope of the original agreement.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. v.Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe & Ors.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court recognized Warner Bros' status as a global leader and prior proprietor of the well-known 'Hogwarts' trademarks. Crucially, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing mark 'The Hogwarts Kafe' at their restaurant premises and directed to remove all related advertisements and listings online.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess v.New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess - Nunpahal Unavagam LLP
This case involved a dispute over the use of the trade name 'New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess' between two entities. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off, along with damages. However, both parties mutually agreed to resolve all existing disputes, including those related to the trademark claims, through arbitration.
Wako India Kickboxing Federation v.Wako India Kickboxing Federation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from certain procedural requirements, while simultaneously registering the main plaint as a formal civil suit. The suit was filed under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal and rectification of specific trademarks registered in the defendant's name. The court issued detailed directions for serving summons and ensuring timely filing of written statements and rejoinders by both parties.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Dfm Foods Ltd v.Ishvi Food Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a trademark infringement suit between Dfm Foods Ltd and Ishvi Food Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement confirmed that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 'CURLS' trademark rights by passing off their corn-based snacks as originating from Dfm Foods. In exchange for the defendants agreeing to cease all infringing activities, destroy existing goods, and acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiff waived claims for damages and costs.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd concerning the misuse of its 'AMUL' brand on social media. While initial injunctions were granted, the court examined the claims for damages against Defendants No. 1 and No. 4. Recognizing that both defendants had taken remedial steps, including removing the infringing content, the Court dismissed the claim for damages due to a lack of evidence of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was closed against these two defendants, while proceedings remain pending against Defendant No. 5.
Sap Se v.Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning the names 'SAP' and 'SAPPY', the Delhi High Court took two key actions. First, it confirmed an existing interim injunction after the defendants withdrew their trademark applications, thereby protecting the plaintiff's interests temporarily. Second, recognizing the parties' willingness to resolve the conflict amicably, the court directed both sides to participate in mediation, signaling a move towards settlement for the ongoing commercial suit.
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v.SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, both parties expressed interest in reaching an amicable resolution. Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement discussions. The court also listed the case for reporting any settlement on November 9, 2021, while maintaining existing interim orders.
HT MEDIA LIMITED v.BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit between HT Media Limited and Brainlink International, Inc. The court provided procedural directions regarding the continuation of interim orders, setting deadlines for parties to file replies to various applications (including those seeking anti-suit injunctions and condonation of delay), and scheduled further hearings for pleading completion.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Dimple Madhulal Bhatia v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Dimple Madhulal Bhatia against the Union of India regarding delays in processing trademark applications. The petitioner sought an urgent direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to schedule hearings and expedite the examination of her pending trademarks. While the respondent argued that matters were being processed according to seniority, the court intervened, directing the concerned authority to deal with the petitioner's applications preferably within four months.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
Arun Kumar Murarka v.Rajesh Sultania & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Arun Kumar Murarka concerning the trademark dispute against Rajesh Sultania & Anr. The core issue involves a petition seeking rectification/cancellation of the 'KAILASA' trademark (Reg. No. 4701472) due to its alleged deceptive similarity to the petitioner's mark, 'KAILASHA'. While an exemption application was allowed, the court proceeded by issuing notice to the defendant and listing the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2021.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
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.