India Trademark Cases
2,115 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 71 · 2,115 total
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Western Digital Technologies Inc. against M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was selling manipulated and refurbished HDDs bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, thereby infringing on their brand rights and engaging in passing off. This interim relief prevents the defendant from further tampering with or commercially dealing in the branded products until the final hearing.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff, Bombay Dyeing, to implead two new entities, M/s Ooak Association and M/s Urban Stuff Retail, as defendants in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that these newly identified parties were organizers of an exhibition where counterfeit 'BOMBAY DYEING' bed linens were being sold. Furthermore, the Court granted exemption from advance service to several existing defendants, facilitating the continuation of the injunction proceedings against the infringing products.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Joy Creators Llp v.Best Medicals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Joy Creators LLP against Best Medicals & Ors., based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the parties. The judgment confirms that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'JOY' trademark and grants permanent injunction relief. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement for damages and costs, leading to the court also directing the refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Energy Beverages Pvt Ltd v.Ekadanta Packaged Drinking Water and Others
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and trademark infringement against the respondents. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'CLEAR' and proprietary rights over its artistic label and bottle shape, arguing that the defendant's use of 'CLEAR GOLD' amounted to infringement and passing off.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of 'HILTON HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED' and associated testimonials led customers to believe there was a direct connection with the plaintiff's established brand. Furthermore, the court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter.
Mebigo Labs Private Limited v.Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Mebigo Labs Private Limited against Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and trademark dilution by the defendant's use of similar branding ('Story TV'). Furthermore, the court directed Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) to suspend specific infringing advertisements on Facebook and Instagram, protecting Mebigo Labs' digital content platform 'KUKU FM'.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Gurjinder Kaur & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition filed under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued directions to issue notices to all parties involved in the trademark matter. Furthermore, separate applications seeking interim relief (under CPC) were also addressed by setting timelines for filing replies and listing the matters before the Joint Registrar and the Court.
Nilkamal Crates And Containers & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Nilkamal Crates And Containers after a settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5. The settlement confirmed Nilkamal's ownership of its well-known 'NILKAMAL' trademark and required Defendant No. 5 to cease all activities related to manufacturing or trading deceptively similar goods, such as mattresses. Furthermore, Defendant No. 5 agreed to pay damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in a trademark opposition case filed by Bajaj Auto Limited against M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr. The court directed that notice be served to all parties, allowing four weeks for filing replies and rejoinders. The matter was subsequently scheduled for listing before the Joint Registrar (J) on September 9, 2025, and then before the Court again on November 19, 2025.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.S. Tejinder Pal Singh & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited. The court issued directions to serve notices on the respective respondents, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders. Both the main opposition case and associated interim applications were listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Manpreet Gogia & Ors.
Bajaj Auto Limited filed a petition under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, initiating trademark opposition proceedings against certain respondents. The Delhi High Court issued directions to serve notices on all parties and set specific dates for the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court. This order marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge regarding the trademark rights.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.M/S Hilton Cloud Resort
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against M/S Hilton Cloud Resort, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using the name 'HILTON CLOUD RESORT' or any confusingly similar mark while also granting four weeks to remove all listings and usage of the impugned mark across various platforms. This order sets the stage for the full trial, establishing immediate protection for the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Triveniprime Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by Triveni Household Items Manufacturers against Triveniprime Industries Private Limited concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions regarding its trademarks, 'TRIVENI' and 'TRIVENI ALMIRAH'. While the court granted procedural reliefs such as extensions for filing fees and leave to file additional documents, it also directed that the matter proceed with an interim injunction hearing on August 20, 2025.
Ozone Overseas Private Limited v.Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Hardware Solutions & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Ozone Overseas Private Limited, a leading global provider of architectural hardware. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants, recognizing the urgency of seeking an ad interim injunction. Crucially, the court allowed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct searches and seizures at the defendant's premises, ensuring evidence preservation in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr. v.Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited v.M/S Hotel Hilton
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'HILTON' brand, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on July 29, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption regarding document translation while simultaneously facilitating a resolution through mandatory mediation. Crucially, the defendants stated their willingness to cease using the disputed trademark, leading the court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre and adjourn further proceedings pending its outcome.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.
Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt Ltd v.Urmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.
Upgrad Education Private Limited v.Lavangiri Ansar Basha And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Upgrad Education Private Limited against Lavangiri Ansar Basha and others. The court found that the defendant was actively making false, malicious, and disparaging statements about the plaintiff's brand 'upGrad' on social media platforms, including using the trademark with derogatory hashtags like 'scam' and 'fraud'. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from further defamatory posts until the next hearing, while the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.
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.