India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 91 of 125 · 3,740 total
M/s.Bombay Pen Depot v.M/s.Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/s. Bombay Pen Depot and M/s. Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd by accepting a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC). Under the terms, the Plaintiff assigned its registered trademarks (PENTONIC) to the First Defendant for a consideration of INR 15 lakhs. In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw oppositions against the defendant's trademark applications and cease using the mark after a specified date.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
Parthasarathy Seniammal Educational Trust v.V.Rangasamy Naidu Educational Trust
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute between two educational trusts regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants argued that mere abbreviations should not be considered infringement, while the respondents maintained that the single judge's decision was sound. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal but left all substantive issues open for resolution in the pending injunction application.
Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v.Charlotte Anderson & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.
Srmb Srijan Private Limited v.Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Srmb Srijan Private Limited against Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited. The dispute centered on the 'X-Ribs' surface pattern used on TMT bars, which the plaintiff claimed constituted a distinctive trade dress and trademark acquired through long use and extensive marketing. The court found a strong prima facie case for passing off, noting that the defendant was using an identical imitation of the plaintiff's unique product indicia. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trade dress when demonstrating consumer association.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Golden Glue and others
Pidilite Industries Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Golden Glue and others alleging passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and also passed an interim order granting injunctions to protect the plaintiff's brand identity and packaging design.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Golden Glue and others
Pidilite Industries Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Golden Glue and others alleging passing off related to its FEVICRYL product line. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and also passed an interim order granting specific injunctions.
S.S White Burs,Inc v.S.S. WHITE DENTAL PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes between S.S White Burs,Inc and S.S. White Dental Pvt Ltd, which had previously been stayed pending decisions by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Noting significant delays due to the non-appointment of technical members at IPAB, the court issued directions. The parties were directed to seek a status report from the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) regarding the appointment process, highlighting the potential harassment and delay faced by litigants.
Procter And Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Kani Soap Works
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the Defendant was using the Plaintiff's trade dress and label on detergent powder with clear intent to infringe the mark and pass off goods. The Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim order restraining the Defendant from using the ARIEL ATOMIUM and TIDE marks/trade dress pending final disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.J.K.Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against J.K.Enterprises regarding trademark infringement related to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted leave and passed an order restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods using marks similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive trademarks WHEEL and Device of SPLAT.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Nashirbhai Mohmedali Mansuri And Anr
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Nashirbhai Mohmedali Mansuri and others alleging infringement of its well-known trademark 'Vim', associated logos, and trade dress. The court granted the leave petition and passed an interim order.
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 alleging passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted a temporary order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meera Prints" pending the final hearing.
Wockhardt Limited v.Chematac Pharmaceuticals
Wockhardt Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Chematac Pharmaceuticals alleging passing off due to deceptively similar packaging. The court granted leave and passed an interim order restraining the defendant from using packaging that could mislead consumers into believing their product was associated with Wockhardt.
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 alleging passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted an interim order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meera Prints" on textile goods.
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.
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.