India Trademark Cases
3,740 decisions indexed
Page 94 of 125 · 3,740 total
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Rds Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP Suit against Rds Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, specifically the 'Device of SPLAT' mark used in detergent preparations. The court granted leave and passed an order restraining the defendant from using any identical or deceptively similar marks pending the final hearing of the suit.
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the registered trademark 'CFA'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Although the court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's counsel failing to provide instructions.
The Society Of Certified Public Acountants v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Society of Certified Public Accountants filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CpA'. The court initially determined that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it involved intellectual property rights relating to trademarks. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default because the counsel on record for the plaintiff submitted that they had no instructions from the plaintiff.
B.Vivekananthan v.B.Anandan Trading as Anand's MOONRAKERS RESTAURANT & B.Anandan Trading as Anand's Moonrakers
This Madras High Court case involved a trademark infringement suit filed by B.Vivekananthan against B.Anandan regarding the use of the 'MOONRAKERS' mark in restaurant and hospitality services. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for both trademark infringement and passing off, along with delivery up of infringing materials. Ultimately, the parties reached a joint compromise memo on April 30, 2021, which was recorded by the court, leading to a decree based on mutual settlement.
M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited & Anr v.Droom Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over alleged disparagement between Cars24 (Plaintiffs) and Droom Technology (Defendants). Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's advertising campaign, which used similar catchphrases and visual elements, was designed to denigrate their brand. However, the court found that the defendant had sufficiently modified its advertisement and that the phrase 'DON’T BE A BAKRA' was an integral part of the defendant's registered trademark, not a disparaging reference to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to continue using the revised advertisement during the pendency of the suit.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Naseer Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Naseer Apollo Pharmacy. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Apollo Pharmacy' was deceptive and infringed upon Apollo's registered trademarks across multiple classes, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, ordered the surrender of all infringing materials, and directed the defendant to render accounts of profits.
M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private Limited v.Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.
Tata Sons Ltd & Anr v.Krishna Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting permanent injunctions and awarding substantial damages against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The suit centered on the unauthorized use of the well-known 'TATA' mark and associated domain names (www.tatafinserve.com). Given that the defendants evaded court proceedings, the Court emphasized the principle of corrective justice, holding them liable for punitive damages.
Condore Health Care Pvt.Ltd v.M/S Corem Pharma Pvt Ltd
This case involved a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a suit filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The petitioner argued that since the estimated value of their intangible trademark rights and reliefs sought was less than one crore rupees, the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the respondent contended that the market value mentioned in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exceeded the threshold. The High Court ultimately ruled that for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Act, it is the value of the reliefs estimated by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees that governs, not the higher market valuation cited elsewhere.
Turning Point & Anr. v.Turning Point Institute Private Ltd
This appeal addressed a dispute over the use of the mark 'TP TURNING POINT' in the educational sector. The appellant challenged an order that had restricted its use of the trademark, while the respondent claimed prior usage rights dating back to 1994. The court focused on setting aside the restrictive injunction granted against the appellant. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal regarding the interlocutory injunction, quashing the previous order and dismissing IA 16232/2015. However, the judgment noted that it was prima facie and interlocutory in nature, leaving the core merits of the trademark dispute unresolved.
Galderma S.A And Anr v.Medsea Healthcare Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a summary dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The court noted that while the plaintiffs had assigned their rights to the mark Q-MED, the timing and effect of this assignment were complex and required full trial evidence. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership changes and alleged concealment, the court ruled that the core issues could not be resolved summarily, allowing the main litigation to proceed.
M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan v.M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan, argued they had a strong prima facie case against the respondent for using a deceptively similar name ('Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House') for their restaurant business. While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the infringement claim itself, it intervened by directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings and pass necessary orders within 30 days.
Praneet Singh Davar v.L S Davar & Co & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous interim order that restricted the appellant's association with the respondent firm. While acknowledging the initial prohibition, the court clarified that the single judge's recorded 'prima facie' opinion regarding trademark rectification was not a final determination. The judgment directs the Registrar of Trademarks to proceed with the rectification proceedings based on merits, independent of the prior preliminary view.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the IPAB and High Court that had cancelled the 'NANDHINI' trademark registration held by M/S. Nandhini Deluxe. The dispute centered on whether the restaurant chain could use a deceptively similar mark to the established milk producer, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. The SC found that the appellant was a concurrent user who adopted the mark early enough and did not attempt to take unfair advantage of the respondent's goodwill, thereby restoring the registration.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
The Gillette Company Llc v.Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, The Gillette Company Llc, to continue its existing interim injunction against the defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to their prior use of the mark compared to the defendants' recent adoption. This decision maintains the status quo while the main suit proceeds, though the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any losses incurred if they ultimately fail in the litigation.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Insecticides (India) Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'VICTOR 80' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'VICTOR', despite arguments regarding prior use and registration complexities. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior user rights can prevail over subsequent adoption, even if the latter is claimed in good faith.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Rohit Singh & Anr v.Apple Inc.
The Delhi High Court addressed the trade mark dispute between Rohit Singh and Apple Inc. concerning the term 'SPLITVIEW.' The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against Apple, alleging passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar feature name in its operating systems. While the court dismissed an interim injunction request, it proceeded to frame six detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the term is merely descriptive, who has prior usage rights, and if the plaintiffs' mark has acquired distinctiveness.
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v.Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Torrent Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a lower court order that vacated an interim injunction. The dispute centered on whether Comed Chemicals' brand name, 'CODROXIL', infringed upon Torrent's registered trademark, 'DROXYL'. Despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity, the court found no prima facie case for confusion, noting that both names originated from the generic drug 'Cefadroxil' and considering the nature of prescription-only pharmaceutical sales. The appeal was dismissed, directing the lower court to finalize the main suit promptly.
New Hope Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Pioneer Bakeries (P.) Ltd.
New Hope Industries challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to rectify its trademarks, Milka Wonder Cake. However, before the Madras High Court could rule on the validity of the marks, both parties entered into a Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated March 26, 2018. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn, resolving the dispute outside of judicial decree.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Perfect Agro
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement involving Hakimuddin Bhemat and Perfect Agro. The court heard submissions from various parties, including an added respondent (Respondent No. 2), who claimed they were merely acting as intermediaries based on requisitions from Defendant No. 1. To clarify the supply chain, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the identities of third-party suppliers. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking that they would cease using the plaintiff's trademark, while deadlines for other parties were extended.
Reliance Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Reliance Medipharma
The Gujarat High Court addressed appeals concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand name 'RELIANCE' in the pharmaceutical sector. While the court confirmed the lower court's decision refusing a broad injunction against the defendants using the name 'Reliance,' it partially allowed the appeal by specifically restraining the use of the derivative mark, 'Reliance Rx M,' for pharmaceutical products. This ruling highlights the nuanced approach courts take when balancing established trademark rights with specific usage limitations.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
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.