Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v. Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic

C/AO/60/2020

The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Gujarat High Court
Case Number
C/AO/60/2020
Judge(s)
R.P.Dholaria

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Gujarat High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan vs Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.S. No.371 of 2016

Shyam Enterprises Private LimitedvsHotel Amaravati

The Madras High Court partially decreed a suit filed by Shyam Enterprises Private Limited against Hotel Amaravati concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim regarding the use of the registered trademark AMARAVATHI in the hotel and hospitality sector. Consequently, the defendant was granted permanent injunctions restraining them from using the mark or suggesting a connection to the plaintiff's services. However, since the plaintiff did not press for claims related to damages or accounting of profits, those specific reliefs were dismissed.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 192/2024

M/S Avon Automotive And OrsvsM/S Avon Cycles Limited

The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.

trademarkC/AO/145/2019

Jivraj Tea LimitedvsDayalji Vanravan Kotecha

The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.

trademarkW.P.(IPD)No.7 of 2025

M/s.Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning the delay in processing an opposition petition against a trade mark application. M/s. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite the disposal of Opposition No. 1176324 related to Trade Mark Application No. 4853565. The Court, noting the prolonged delay despite complete pleadings, issued a directive mandating the Registrar of Trade Marks to resolve the matter within three months, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity to be heard.

trademarkCS(COMM) 709/2024

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsPranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.

Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call