India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 76 of 123 · 3,667 total
M/s.THALAPPAKATTI NAIDU ANANDHA VILAS BIRIYANI HOTEL v.M/s.THALAPPAKATTU BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, granting a permanent injunction against M/s.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food for trademark infringement and passing off. Although the defendant later changed its name to 'AL RAHMAN BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD,' the court found that the initial use of the offending mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to distinctive trade names in the competitive food service industry.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr v.Micky Metals Limited
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim application seeking protection for their trademark 'LUX'. Despite presenting evidence of long-standing use, massive sales figures, and international presence, the court found insufficient grounds to grant relief at the interim stage. The judgment noted that the mark 'LUX' has been used by various entities and pointed to prior legal challenges regarding its registration, ultimately finding no compelling reason to favor the plaintiffs.
Hasmukhrai And Co. v.Nishi Enterprises
The Bombay High Court disposed of the interim application after both parties reached an agreement. The Defendants submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and agreed to destroy all infringing labels and materials within three weeks.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite disputes over additional pleadings and evidence. The court found that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was questionable, particularly because it relied on documents later alleged to be forged by the third party (Astha Sales). This interim relief allows the plaintiff to continue pursuing their trademark rights while the full case proceeds.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
Yonex Co., Ltd. v.Sumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite procedural objections raised by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the 'trinity test' (prior user, reputation, and likelihood of deception) at the trial level. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was based on potentially forged documents provided to the trial court, leading the High Court to grant interim relief.
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v.REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court issued several directions in this trademark dispute involving the 'AMUL' brand. The court allowed an application seeking to implead a specific applicant as a respondent, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to file an affidavit detailing the current status of advertisements related to the mark. This ongoing litigation focuses on clarifying the scope and validity of the registered trademark.
Sagacious Research Private Limited v.Vivek Dahiya & Ors.
In this matter concerning the 'SAGACIOUS' mark, the parties agreed to pursue an amicable resolution rather than immediate litigation. The court facilitated this by directing both the plaintiff and defendants to attend mediation and conciliation proceedings on August 23, 2021. While some interlocutory applications were allowed subject to exceptions, the primary focus shifted towards resolving the trademark and domain name disputes outside of court.
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited v.Ms Yum Yum Chi
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited successfully sought an ex parte injunction against Ms Yum Yum Chi in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, which operates restaurants under registered trademarks like 'Yum Yum Cha,' alleged that the defendant's use of 'Yum Yum Chi' was deceptively similar to its established brand. The court granted the interim relief, restraining the defendants from selling or advertising services under the disputed name pending further proceedings.
Atotech Deutschland GmbH v.Grauer & Well (India) Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial appeal filed by Atotech Deutschland GmbH seeking urgent interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'TRICHROME' mark. The initial refusal of the injunction was based partly on procedural delays. However, the Appellate Bench clarified that under the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, immediate protection for registered trademarks should be prioritized over minor delays. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions allowing Atotech to request an early hearing and have its ad-interim relief application reconsidered on its merits.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
Mr.T.G.Arumugam v.Mr.T.G.Harigopal & Mr.T.S.Ganesan
This Madras High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the registered trademark 'UMBRELLA BRAND' between family members. Initially filed seeking to invalidate an assignment deed and secure exclusive proprietorship, the parties ultimately reached a compromise. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit based on the Memo of Compromise, which allows all involved parties to coexist in the business and share the use of the trademark.
M/s.Kwik Patch Ltd. v.Mr.N.R.Rajagopalan
M/s. Kwik Patch Ltd. filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court alleging infringement and passing off against Mr. N.R. Rajagopalan, claiming that his use of the label 'KOOL BOND' violated their trademark 'KWIK'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act. However, due to the suit having been pending for over 20 years and a lack of inclination from both parties to pursue the matter further, the court dismissed the case.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Castrol Limited v.Goel Traders
This case involved Castrol Limited filing a suit against Goel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the use of similar graphic labels and color schemes on their gear oil packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of their brand identity. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Amit Kumar Mishra v.State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Mishra regarding alleged large-scale trademark violation. The petitioner sought an omnibus direction from the State authorities to prohibit unauthorized use of his trademark. However, the court held that such broad directives are inappropriate and directed the petitioner to identify specific violators and pursue civil or criminal proceedings against them.
Pepsico Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark dispute between Pepsico Inc. and Parle Agro Private Limited. The court granted certain exemptions while noting that the defendant intended to file an application seeking rectification under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The matter was subsequently renotified for further hearing on August 5, 2021.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
Dhanam Textiles v.N.Varadaiah Trading as Ganesh Lungi Company
Dhanam Textiles filed a suit against N.Varadaiah for alleged infringement of its registered trademark '360 BRAND,' copyright violation, and passing off concerning textile goods (lungies). The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of deceptively similar labels like '3600, 361, 369 BRAND.' Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise memo which was accepted by the court, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that settlement.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the plaintiff holds a registered mark 'FLY HIGH' and claims extensive usage rights. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing names or registering similar domain names until further hearing.
Yasmin Khalique And Ors. v.Mukhtar Alam
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a partnership dissolution and the associated registered trademark, 'Musa ka gul'. While the core dispute involves the validity of the arbitration award dissolving the firm, the court specifically addressed the use of the valuable trademark. The court clarified that ownership rights are not its immediate concern but issued a crucial interim order preventing either party from transferring or assigning any rights related to the mark until the appeal is finally decided.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging infringement and passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe but agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
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.