India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 90 of 123 · 3,667 total
patanjali ayurved ltd v.axiom ayurveda
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. sued Axiom Ayurveda for trademark infringement, alleging that Axiom was using the terms 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Ayurved Foundation Trust' and 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Yogpeeth Foundation Trust' on their products, creating a deceptive association with Patanjali’s trademarks PATANJALI and PATANJALI AYURVED. The plaintiff claimed significant revenue (approximately Rs. 9,000 crores) and widespread distribution of its products under the contested marks.
M/S Khushi Ram Behari Lal (later M/s. KRBL Ltd.) v.M/S Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, favoring the petitioner in a trademark dispute over the 'TRAIN BRAND.' The court found that the respondent failed to prove prior use of the mark, particularly noting discrepancies and alleged forgery in the invoices presented. Consequently, the application for registration of the 'TRAIN' brand for basmati rice was allowed to proceed.
Hotel Panchavati v.Shree Panchvati Veg Restaurant
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off related to their well-known 'Panchavati' marks. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the Defendants for using similar marks like 'Shree Panchvati'. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs.
Associated Chemicals v.Associated Chemicals Corporation
In a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court mediated a settlement between Associated Chemicals and Associated Chemicals Corporation. The parties mutually agreed to allow both entities to continue using their respective trademarks—"Associated Chemicals" and "Associated Chemicals Corporation"—without objection. Furthermore, the Defendant agreed to remove the 'sister concern' designation from its website within 45 days, while allowing the Plaintiff to mention its group affiliation.
Noor Hospital Trust And 7 Ors v.Sajid Ali Khan
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial IP suit concerning the alleged passing off of a hospital's trademark. The Plaintiffs, Noor Hospital Trust, sought to restrain the Defendant from using 'NEW NOOR HOSPITAL,' claiming deceptive similarity to their established mark 'NOOR HOSPITAL.' The court framed multiple issues covering passing off, descriptiveness of the term 'NOOR,' and claims for damages and injunctions, setting a clear path for the evidence phase.
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement concerning the medicinal preparation 'PANTOCID'. The Bombay High Court granted leave and further issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trade mark "MAX PANTOCID" or any other similar marks.
Jasper Infotech Private Limited v.Aadi Sins & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Jasper Infotech Private Limited regarding its SNAPDEAL trademarks. The court restrained the newly impleaded defendants from infringing the trademarks or passing off their business as affiliated with the plaintiff. Crucially, the court directed several domain registrars to immediately suspend numerous domains that were allegedly used for fraudulent activities related to the brand, and also ordered a freeze on specific bank accounts.
Benden Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a commercial IP suit filed by Benden Limited against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The dismissal occurred because the Plaintif had previously received an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) directing the cancellation of its trademark registration, 'Perfect Radiance.' Since the mark was removed from the register, the court found that the Plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Hasmi T.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Hasmi T. regarding the alleged infringement of their trade mark 'VIDVIE'. The court granted an interim order restraining the defendant from using the disputed trademark on mobile phone accessories until the final hearing.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a court-supervised licensing process for proprietary edible oil trademarks, citing concerns over the integrity of the bidding. The Judge found that media reports suggesting bias had compromised the neutrality of the auction, leading to only two bidders remaining (the Plaintiff and one Defendant). Consequently, the Court Receiver was directed to halt the current proceedings, return all existing deposits, and reissue advertisements under strict conditions of silence from all parties.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser against Patanjali Ayurved concerning alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices related to toilet cleaner advertisements. The core dispute centered on misleading claims made in both original and revised advertisements regarding the use of hydrochloric acid and product naturalness. While the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's revised advertisement, the Court permitted Reckitt Benckiser to amend its plaint, allowing the litigation to proceed while preserving the rights of Patanjali Ayurved.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others regarding alleged trademark infringement/passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meena Prints" or "Meera Prints" on their textile goods.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others regarding alleged passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks.
Hotel Panchavati And Anr. v.Hotel Panchavati Pure Veg Family Restaurant and Ors.
The suit was filed regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, PANCHAVATI / PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, issuing a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
dharampal satyapal sons pvt ltd v.mr satish kumar
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) sued Mr. Satish Kumar & Ors (Defendants) for infringement of their registered trademark 'PULSE' on candies, alleging deceptive similarity to the Defendants’ brand ‘PLUS’ and trade dress. Both parties were selling candies in class 30, with the Plaintiff claiming significant market share and goodwill.
Sopariwala Exports And Anr. v.Satyapal Shivkumar
The Bombay High Court vacated an earlier ex-parte order that had recognized the Plaintiff's prior use of the trademark 'PAN RAAS'. The court found that the statement claiming the Plaintiffs conceived and adopted the distinctive mark in 2008 was incorrect, noting that the word 'RAAS' was adopted after a compromise with Rasana Private Limited. This decision significantly impacts the Plaintiff's claim regarding the originality and priority of their trademark rights.
Maharshi Packaging Machines Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Maharshi Udyog Thru Partner, Bhagvat Vitthaldas Shah
The Gujarat High Court stayed a commercial trademark civil suit after hearing an appeal challenging the trial court's refusal to frame an issue regarding the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. The petitioner argued that since they had filed a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the IPAB, the Civil Court should not have ruled on the matter unilaterally. The court agreed that the trial court needed to properly consider the pending statutory proceedings, leading to the stay.
Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Issac Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods / M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P)Ltd. v.Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Aachi Spices and Foods filed a civil suit alleging that Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd was infringing upon its copyright and passing off its brand, 'AACHI RAGI FLOUR.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of similar marks on ragi flour products. After establishing jurisdiction and presenting ex-parte evidence, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting injunctive reliefs and directing the surrender of infringing materials. Furthermore, given the defendant's failure to appear despite being duly served, the court awarded significant compensatory costs.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Reva Sree Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Reva Sree Industries alleging infringement of its trademarks (OK and WHEEL) and passing off through the use of similar trade dress on detergent products. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks/trade dress pending final disposal.
Unilever Plc. v.HAD Enterprises
Unilever Plc. filed a suit alleging that Had Enterprises was violating its trademarks (LAKME, LAKME EYECONIC, etc.) by selling products using deceptive marks and logos. The court addressed motions related to the investigation of these IP violations.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
Riyaz Chowdhary v.Parfums Parour And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark rectification dispute concerning the mark 'LOMANI'. The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to remove the trademark, arguing that he was denied natural justice because the application for rectification was not served upon him until seven years after it was filed. Recognizing this procedural lapse, the Court set aside the IPAB's order and mandated a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to contest the removal of his registered mark.
Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra v.Registrar Of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra concerning the prolonged delay in deciding his trade mark registration application for 'Krinal Double Filter Chuno'. The petitioner alleged inaction by the Registrar of Trade Marks, noting that the application had been pending since 2008. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive to the Respondent Authority to finalize the decision on Application No.1688346 within eight weeks from the date of the order, without examining the merits of the underlying trade mark dispute.
Red Bull Ag v.C. Eswari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Red Bull Ag, declaring its 'Double Bull Device' and 'Single Bull Device' trademarks as well-known marks in India. The court found that Red Bull's extensive global presence, massive sales figures (controlling 97.3% of the Indian energy drink market), and widespread promotion satisfied the criteria for a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This declaration provides strong legal backing to prevent unauthorized use by defendants in related goods.
Unilever Plc v.Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought interim relief against the Defendant, Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks SUNSILK and CLEAR in the personal care industry. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks and ordered disclosure of relevant documents.
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.