India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 78 of 125 · 3,740 total
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'.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe and agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Electro International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Emami Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Handsome' and 'Glow and Handsome,' Emami Limited sought an injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in the Calcutta High Court. However, Emami decided to withdraw its current application (GA No.3/2021), stating that it had filed a substantially similar application earlier (GA No.2/2020). The court granted leave for withdrawal and directed that the original, pending application (GA No.2/2020) be taken up for hearing on July 5, 2021.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Healthyraj Wellness Enterprises & Anr
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendants for using the competing mark DIABIT. The court found that the Defendants' mark was structurally, visually, and phonetically almost indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's registered mark DIAVIT, leading to a significant likelihood of confusion.
Rajalakshmi Match Works v.Satpal Sindhi
The plaintiff, Rajalakshmi Match Works, filed a civil suit against several defendants seeking permanent injunctions to restrain them from passing off their safety matches as the plaintiff's by using the 'RAJHA'S SHRIFAL' trade mark and infringing the associated copyright. During the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Civil Suit had become infructuous.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.M/S Frankfinn Creations & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., restraining M/s Frankfinn Creations from using the trademark 'FRANKFINN'. The court found a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff has long-standing goodwill associated with its registered mark for aviation and training services. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, inventory infringing materials, and examine their financial records.
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd v.Imperial Heritage School
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd successfully secured an interim injunction against Imperial Heritage School in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs, who operate a well-established school under the name 'The Heritage School,' alleged that the defendants were attempting to register and use the deceptively similar mark 'IMPERIAL HERITAGE SCHOOL.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm and confusion in the market.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.M/S Jbmr Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against M/S JBMR Enterprises. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical marks ('KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT') and copying the entire trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's eco-friendly paints. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling infringing products and directed to take down associated online presence.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited v.Deepali Company Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited, which sought to overturn a trial court's rejection of interim injunctions. The core issue was whether the appellant had established a prima facie case for trademark protection in the ongoing family dispute. The court held that because the suit/appeal lacked proper authorization (Board Resolution) and involved conflicting interests among equal shareholders, no prima facie case could be made out, thus justifying the trial court's refusal of temporary injunctions.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
Mohalla Tech Priavte Limited v.Lagdhir Jugaldip Bharatkumar
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark suit. While the appellant argued the initial order failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court chose not to interfere with the interim order at that stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with hearing the Injunction Application on its merits, ensuring both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products, the Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's request for immediate interim injunction. The court declined to grant an ex parte order, emphasizing that the defendants had claimed prior use of the mark since 2018 and that public interest required them to be given a chance to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants, allowing the litigation process to proceed with due consideration for all parties.
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.