India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 83 of 125 · 3,740 total
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Dream11 Team
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Dream11 Team, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendant was slavishly adopting identical trademarks and logos, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark or similar logos, and the court ordered the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend/block the infringing domain name www.dream11team.com.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.
In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning trademark infringement between Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. and Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors. The dispute centered on the use of similar trade names like 'Road Faster' and 'Milan Road Master.' Through a settlement, the respondents agreed to cease using the disputed marks and withdraw their applications for registration. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellant to proceed with seeking a decree in the underlying suit.
McDonalds Corporation And Anr v.National Internet Exchange Of India And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of McDonald's Corporation against various defendants accused of fraudulent activities. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, recognizing that the defendants were misusing the 'McDonald's' trademark, Golden Arches Logo, and associated domain names to offer fake franchise opportunities. This crucial order restrained the defendants from infringing on McDonald's intellectual property rights and directed them to freeze relevant bank accounts.
M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal v.Evergreen International (Through Its Proprietor)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal against Evergreen International. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that despite no phonetic similarity between 'GOPAL' and 'KRISHNA', there was clear conceptual similarity and deceptive trade dress. This ruling temporarily halts the defendant's sale of similar chewing tobacco products until the full trial.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued crucial interim directions in favor of Montblanc Simplo Gmbh against alleged counterfeiters. Recognizing ongoing illegal activities, including the sale of fake products using the registered trademark and the use of an infringing website, the court ordered the immediate freezing of specific bank accounts linked to the defendants. Furthermore, it directed the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend the problematic website, www.virtuindia.co.in, protecting public interest while the main litigation proceeds.
Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. v.M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction favoring Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. against M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's distinctive trademark (FK/) and associated artistic logo/trade dress for manufacturing and selling bearings. Given that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in its favor, the court issued a restraining order against all defendants from dealing in the infringing goods until further hearing.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. v.Alexi Pharmicia & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. against Alexi Pharmicia & Anr. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Danone's proprietary rights, including its registered trademark 'PROTINEX,' trade dress, and associated copyrights, by the defendants who were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark 'PROTILEX.' The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Network18 Media & Investments Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Tv Today Network Limited alleged that Network18 Media & Investments Limited was slavishly copying its marks, including "DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI" and "AGENDA AAJ TAK." While the court allowed procedural applications for both parties, it also noted disputes regarding the abandonment of certain marks. Crucially, the defendant provided an undertaking to refrain from using the registered mark 'DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI' pending further judicial review.
ABP Private Limited & Anr. v.Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata & Ors.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks for allegedly treating several trade mark applications as 'abandoned' without following the prescribed statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the procedure laid down in Section 132 and Rule 38(4) and (5) was not followed, despite the petitioner sending a reply to the objection.
Anhueser Busch Llc v.Rishav Sharma & Ors
Anhueser Busch LLC successfully obtained an ad interim injunction against Rishav Sharma and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory videos published on social media platforms were infringing its registered 'Budweiser' trademark and causing commercial disparagement by falsely depicting employees urinating in the beer. The court found a prima facie case existed, granting immediate relief to prevent further harm until the final hearing.
Raf Stationery Mfg Co. v.Ms Goel Trading Co Through Its Proprietor Mr Ankur Goel & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Raf Stationery Mfg Co. against Ms Goel Trading Co. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was infringing on the plaintiff's common law trademark rights by using deceptively similar marks, specifically 'DIGITAL PLUS+' and 'GTC DIGITAL PLUS+'. Given the extensive use of the plaintiff's marks and the potential for irreparable harm to its commercial interests, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling the disputed products.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against the defendants, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and logos (like STANDARD, STANGUARD, and HOMESAFE) by the respondents for electrical products. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess common law rights in these brands due to long-term usage. Consequently, the defendants were directed to suspend exports and disclose their manufacturing sources pending further hearings.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. v.Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in the Delhi High Court against Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding the use of a similar mark for infant food products. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark DEXOLAC, alleged that former employees were manufacturing and selling competing products under the name HEXALAC. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss while the suit proceeds.
New Bharat Overseas v.Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'TAJ MAHAL' used for rice. While the plaintiff holds Indian registration, the court noted that a Saudi Arabian entity also possesses similar trademark rights in its country of origin. The court allowed both parties time to file detailed written statements and granted an undertaking from the defendant not to sell or distribute the product outside India and Saudi Arabia. Crucially, the court directed the plaintiff to array the foreign entity as a party, indicating that the matter requires further examination regarding international trademark rights.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
This order from the Delhi High Court addresses procedural matters in the dispute between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company regarding the trademark 'APIXABID'. The court allowed certain exemption applications while also granting time to the respondents to file a reply concerning objections raised against the sale of 58,000 strips under the brand name.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
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.