India Trademark Cases
3,667 decisions indexed
Page 91 of 123 · 3,667 total
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Limited v.Agrasen Paints and Chemicals
Asian Paints Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Agrasen Paints and Chemicals for alleged infringement of the distinctive trade mark UTSAV and associated trade dress. The Bombay High Court granted the requested relief, restraining the Defendant from using similar marks or trade dresses in relation to paints and distemper pending the final hearing.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks, APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints, issuing perpetual injunctions against the defendant's use of similar marks (APEXS and ROYAL) on paint products.
Atlas Radio Traders v.Vijay Marketing
Atlas Radio Traders filed a Notice of Motion alleging that Vijay Marketing was engaging in passing off by using the mark 'JZ CROWN' on electronic goods, which is deceptively similar to Atlas Radio Traders' prior trade mark 'CROWN'. The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or selling such goods until the final disposal of the suit.
Unilever Plc v.Golden Assam Tea Depot
Unilever Plc filed an IP suit against Golden Assam Tea Depot for trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of the impugned trade mark "Sipton" and other deceptively similar marks in relation to tea products, which infringed upon Unilever's registered trademarks, particularly "Lipton".
Luxembourg Brands S.A R.L & Anr v.G.M Pens International Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court partially decreed the suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Despite previous settlements where the defendant agreed to cease using certain marks, the court found that the defendant continued manufacturing and selling products under the mark 'TERAMAX'. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on the company's directors and mandated a detailed accounting and independent audit of all net revenue earned from the infringing sales.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Reva Sree Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an IP suit against Reva Sree Industries alleging that the latter was using a mark (OK WELL) and trade dress deceptively similar to HUL's established marks (OK and WHEEL) and packaging. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim injunction.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Raj Enterprise
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Raj Enterprise alleging infringement related to its detergent preparations, specifically concerning the use of an impugned pirated trade dress and 'Wheel Device'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting interim relief.
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited v.Rwl Healthworld Ltd. & Ors
Kama Ayurveda sought an interim injunction against Rwl Healthworld, alleging that the defendant's product packaging was deceptively similar to its own 'Eladi Hydrating Ayurvedic Face Cream,' thereby constituting passing off. The Delhi High Court examined both products and found material distinctions in shape, color scheme (gold/cream vs. white/off-white), and floral patterns. Ultimately, the court concluded that a common purchaser would not be misled, dismissing the plaintiff's application for an interim order.
Biofarma v.Bal Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Biofarma's suit against Bal Pharma Limited concerning passing off and trade dress infringement. The court found that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the term 'MEX' because it was an acronym ('Metformin Extended Release') derived from the principal drug ingredient, rendering it descriptive and publici juris in the pharmaceutical trade. Consequently, the defendant was permitted to continue using the mark without infringing on the plaintiff’s established brand.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Bharath Trading Co.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Bharath Trading Co. and others for allegedly using a trade mark identical or deceptively similar to its 'SPLAT' device mark in relation to detergent preparations. The court allowed the leave petition and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods under the impugned mark pending final disposal of the suit.
Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v.Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)
This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.
Skullcandy Inc v.Shri Shyam Telecom & Ors
Skullcandy Inc filed a suit against Shri Shyam Telecom and other entities, including the e-commerce platform Shopclues.com, alleging infringement of its 'SKULLCANDY' trademark through the sale of counterfeit products. The core legal dispute centered on whether the online marketplace could claim immunity as an intermediary under the IT Act. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Skullcandy, finding that the website's operational features—such as guaranteeing 100% genuine products and maintaining a 'Replica' category—demonstrated a role beyond that of a passive intermediary.
M/s.MRF Limited v.Multi Race Force Lubricants Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. MRF Limited, finding that the defendant's use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court applied the 'average purchaser' test, concluding that the overall similarity between the marks and packaging was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a perpetual injunction restraining further misuse of the mark.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited v.Netsweeper Inc.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited filed a suit against Netsweeper Inc. alleging passing off and unauthorized use of its registered trademark, 'NETSWEEPER'. The plaintiff, based in Canada, claimed that the defendants were wrongfully associating themselves with its brand to sell similar software services. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, confirming the original injunction granted in favor of Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited.
Commscope Inc. Of North Carolina v.Union Of India
Commscope Inc. approached the Madras High Court seeking rectification of errors in its trademark registration certificate (No. 1380719). The petitioner argued that despite multiple representations, the Trademark Registry failed to issue the corrected certificate. The court intervened, directing the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, to correct the error and issue a fresh Registration Certificate, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against R.R. Trading Company for allegedly using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL. The Bombay High Court granted the leave petition and passed an interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods that pass off as those of the plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jmd Oil Private Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against JMD Oil Private Limited alleging infringement through the use of pirated trade dress in detergent and personal care products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting interim injunctions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jmd Oil Private Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against JMD Oil Private Limited for alleged infringement of its trade dress and marks. The court granted the leave petition and subsequently passed an order granting an interim injunction.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Notice of Motion against R.R. Trading Company alleging that the defendant was using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL for tea products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing off their goods.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Manoj Kumar Sharma
The petitioner, Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited, filed an IP Suit against Manoj Kumar Sharma regarding alleged infringement of its trade marks. The court granted leave to the defendant and passed an interim order restraining him from using 'JAWED HABIB' or 'JH' in connection with hair salon services pending the final hearing.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Systopic Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to frame a new issue in its ongoing suit against Systopic Laboratories Limited. The core dispute involves the similarity between the trademarks 'STORVAS' and 'ORVAS'. Crucially, the court permitted the framing of an additional issue questioning the validity and potential cancellation of the defendant's trademark registration (No. 1328403). This decision was influenced by recent Supreme Court dicta emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleas of invalidity.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited v.Millennium & Copthorne International Limited
The Bombay High Court granted a limited ad-interim relief to Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited, protecting its use of the name 'Hotel Millennium Park' and associated domain. The court ruled that pending the final suit, the Defendant must provide at least 7 days prior written notice before initiating any legal action claiming infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff. This decision provides immediate protection against groundless threats while the main litigation proceeds.
Nawaz Modi and Anr. v.Design Your Body Art/New Body Art Fitness Club and Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Body Basic Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Nawaz Modi), finding that the defendants were infringing on their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using similar marks like 'NEW BODY ART' or misrepresenting their services as connected to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to withdraw an application for registration of the mark 'BODY ART GYM' and pay substantial damages.
Pankaj Sales Corporation v.Indra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC v.Ashok Banwarilal Gupta Trading As Qs
In this Bombay High Court matter concerning alleged trademark infringement, the court accepted an undertaking from the defendants. The defendants committed to refraining from using the trademark or trade name 'POWERHOUSE' across all platforms, including websites and social media. This interim order allows the case to proceed while securing immediate protection for the petitioner's brand.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
The Madras High Court modified existing interim injunctions in a dispute between Vennila Clothing Company and M/s.Arrs Silks regarding trademark and trade dress infringement. The court partially allowed the applications seeking to vacate the previous injunctions, establishing an interim arrangement where the defendants could use specified changed trade dresses for a period of eleven months. This decision allows the main suit to proceed while providing temporary relief to both parties.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed an IP suit against Shri Ajanta Fabrics and others for infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks in relation to textile goods.
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.