India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 71 · 2,115 total
Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural directions in the trademark opposition case filed by Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. Despite ongoing mediation efforts, the court set a timeline for the respondents to file their replies within six weeks, followed by rejoinders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and completion of pleadings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the trademark dispute between Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking records from the Trademark Registry, noting that the record had been received by the parties. Furthermore, the court set a schedule for both sides to file written submissions on the main case before listing it again in January 2026.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
K Arjun Singh And Others v.Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside an adverse interim injunction that had been granted against the appellants' registered trademarks. The court found the initial finding of infringement to be ex facie impermissible and noted a lack of categorical finding regarding passing off goodwill. Consequently, both parties agreed to have the Commercial Court decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC without being influenced by the previous impugned order.
Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S Safed Parindey Event Management Llp & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition seeking intervention in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, claiming rights over various trademarks, sought the court's direction to expedite the decision on an injunction application filed before the Commercial Court. While acknowledging the urgency, the High Court directed the lower court to proceed with deciding the interim injunction on the next scheduled date (September 16, 2025). Crucially, the court stipulated that no adjournment would be granted to the defendants, ensuring a swift resolution of the urgent matter.
M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd, interim relief in its suit against Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders. The court recognized the strength of the 'BLUE HEAVEN' brand, noting its long history since 1972 and extensive portfolio of registered trademarks and copyrights across various cosmetic product lines. Crucially, the court directed the defendants to immediately take down listings of impugned products on major e-commerce platforms like Meesho and Amazon, affirming the plaintiff's rights against online infringement.
Hitesh Rastogi v.M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several connected trademark infringement matters involving Hitesh Rastogi and M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner had filed these petitions without obtaining prior leave from the Civil Court under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Consequently, the matter was listed for a future date, pending the adjudication of the petitioner's application seeking such leave.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous rejection of an injunction application in a trademark/passing off dispute between Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the suit's commercial nature and high valuation (around 10 Crores), the court directed that the matter be treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Furthermore, it mandated the Trial Court to expedite the trial process and aim for a final decision by March 31, 2027.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Active Ayurvedic Life Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Pstgems Private Limited, an ex parte ad-interim injunction in a suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its trademark 'BRAMPIUM' and associated copyrights. The court recognized the urgency of the matter concerning counterfeit products and ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with accessing Defendant No. 1's premises, reviewing CCTV footage, and examining account books and stock registers to gather evidence of infringement.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Nitin Maheshwari And Anr v.Patanjali Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd v.Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio
The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.
Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr. v.Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pi Investment Advisory LLP against Registrant of Premjiex.Com & Ors. The court granted the plaintiffs exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court allowed the filing of additional documents and formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for service and pleadings.
Bulgari S.P.A v.Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels
Bulgari S.P.A filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels for alleged infringement of trademarks and copyright. Following mediation, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in July 2025. The Delhi High Court subsequently accepted this agreement, finding that all executory obligations had been met by the defendant. Consequently, the court disposed of the original suit strictly in terms of the settlement, while also directing the refund of the entire court fee to the plaintiff.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. v.Maschio Crop Protection Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. against Maschio Crop Protection Llp, halting the latter's use of the 'MASCHIO' mark and similar variants. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given its global reputation and registered rights since 1998. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the brand while the main suit proceeds.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Limra Auto Connect
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, affirming the strength of its trademark rights over 'HERO' across various products. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from serving advance notice on the defendant, M/S Limra Auto Connect. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct an inventory of alleged infringing goods, including packaging materials, ensuring the preservation of evidence in this ongoing intellectual property dispute.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
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.