India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 81 of 125 · 3,740 total
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Taparia Industries And Anr
The court addressed a Leave Petition filed by Everest Food Products Private Limited seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and infringement. The court directed that since the Defendants were in Jaipur, service must be effected by courier with proof of delivery.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Bajaj Electricals Limited v.Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd
Bajaj Electricals Limited filed an Interim Application against Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd for alleged trademark infringement related to the mark "BAJAJ SUPERMART". The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants that they would cease using the infringing mark pending the final disposal of the application and remove all associated signage.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) v.Vishna Foods Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) against Vishna Foods Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing on ISKCON's registered trademark and engaging in passing off by using a deceptively similar mark across various goods and services. This interim relief prevents the defendant from continuing unauthorized use of the mark until the final disposal of the suit.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Times Coaching Centre
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning an existing trademark infringement suit between Triumphant Institute of Management Education and Times Coaching Centre. The core issue revolved around whether the Defendant's subsequent change in its trademark, from 'Times Coaching Centre' to 'Future Times Coaching Centre', constituted wilful disobedience of a prior interim injunction. The court found that the Defendant acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the scope of the injunction, believing the new mark was outside its restraint. Consequently, while dismissing the applications for non-wilful reasons, the court imposed costs on the Defendant due to the continued use of infringing marks.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Rajender Kumar
The plaintiff, adidas AG through its Indian subsidiary, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'adidas', 'three bars', '3-Strips', and 'Trefoil'. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Bhcosmetics Llc
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Bhcosmetics Llc. The amendment corrected an inadvertent typographical error, clarifying that the 'BH' logo/label was not yet a registered trademark but rather had a pending application and long-standing user rights since 1986. The court allowed this correction, recognizing it would not alter the core relief sought (permanent injunction for passing off and infringement), and subsequently modified an earlier court order to reflect the accurate status of the mark.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Sukan Raj Jain & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd against Sukan Raj Jain & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'V-GUARD' and associated designs from the use of the deceptively similar mark 'N-GUARD'. Citing a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks and designs. This order sets the stage for the full trial on trademark infringement, design infringement, and passing off.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd v.Laxmikanta Nayak
The court heard an interim application filed by Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd against Laxmikanta Nayak regarding passing off related to drinking water bottles. The parties suggested a settlement, but the court noted undertakings from the defendant regarding not possessing specific moulds or manufacturing depicted bottles.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought to amend their suit against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the petition under Clause XIV to combine the cause of action in passing off with that in infringement, and also permitted the Interim Application for amendments. Consequently, a further ad-interim order was granted regarding the passing off claim.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd v.Deepak Bhatia And Anr
The court heard an interim application and a leave petition filed by Godrej Consumer Products Ltd against Deepak Bhatia and Anr. The court granted the Leave Petition absolute and issued an additional ad-interim order concerning the cause of action in passing off.
M/S. Vipul v.Akshar Sweets And Namkeen
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning the non-granting of ad-interim injunction by a lower civil court in a trademark infringement dispute. The appellants, M/S. Vipul, argued that their prima facie case for trademark infringement was strong and continued prejudice was occurring due to the respondent's unauthorized use of a similar brand name after contract termination. Recognizing the urgency and the merits presented, the High Court disposed of the appeal while directing the trial court to expedite the decision on the injunction application within three months, ensuring the existing restraining order remains in effect until then.
C.V. Radhakrishnan v.Registrar of Trademarks
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed a writ petition filed by C.V. Radhakrishnan concerning the undue delay in issuing a trademark registration certificate for 'RIVER VALLEY.' Despite all procedural requirements being completed and publication occurring as early as December 2019, the petitioner had not received the final certificate. The court recognized the grievance regarding administrative delays and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation within two months.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd v.Annapurna Enterprises And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited. The court found that despite the termination of a franchise agreement, the respondents continued unlawfully using Lakme's brand name, logo, uniforms, and associated trade materials. Consequently, the court issued an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of all branded assets from the respondent's premises, preventing further unauthorized use.
Sahil City Sports v.Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd
Sahil City Sports filed a petition to set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed against it. The original award directed Sahil City Sports to pay damages and permanently restrain it from using the respondent's brand name 'Cricket Academy of Pathans'.
Lalit Babbar & anr. v.Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited v.Ram Dev Industries And Anr.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to initiate a civil suit against Ram Dev Industries & Anr. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were infringing upon their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court examined the petition, noting the combined cause of action for infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, allowing the petitioner to proceed with the suit.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Balaji Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Saphnix Life Science
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application seeking relief against Saphnix Life Science for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark, ARTEFAN. The court examined the evidence showing that the defendant was using an identical trade mark on similar pharmaceutical preparations. Based on the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the ad-interim injunction was granted.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
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.